1921-03-15

RETURNED SOLDIERS-SPECIAL COMMITTEE FIRST REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) presented the first report of the Special Committee appointed to consider questions relating to pensions, insurance, and the reestablishment of returned soldiers, as follows:
Tour committee recommend that their Quorum be reduced from thirteen to seven members.
All of which is respectfully submitted. [DOT]
Mr. CRONYN:: By leave of the House
I would move that the report of the Special Committee apointed to consider questions relating to pensions, insurance, and the reestablishment of returned soldiers presented this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth Annual Report of the Editorial Committee on Governmental Publications dated 1st March, 1921-Right Hon. Sir George Foster.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve) :: I would like to ask the right hon.
the Prime Minister on behalf of a large number of people who are interested in the matter, if it is the intention of the Government to give the usual bonus to the Civil Service this year.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: The matter is under consideration, and I expect that a decision will be reached by the end of this week or the beginning of next.



CAPTAIN HENRY C. H. ADAMS, H.M.C.S. AURORA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: For the purpose of asking a question, I
desire to bring to the notice of the right hon. the Prime Minister a report which appears in this morning's paper of a speech delivered yesterday before the Canadian Club at Vancouver by Captain Adams of the H.M.C.S. Aurora, in which, when referring to the ships of the Canadian squadron, he is alleged to have said:
Although these small ships were very good in their way, what the Dominion required was a striking force in time of war.
And later, that
England to-day is paying $17 a head of population for the maintenance of the great navy which protects us. It is time that Canada stepped in the breach and assumed her fair share of this burden.
I would now ask the right hon. gentleman if Captain Adams, when speaking as he is alleged to have spoken, did so with the knowledge or authority of the Government and if not, will the Government bring to the attention of Captain Adams the fact that the question of Canada's naval requirements is one to be determined by the representatives of the Canadian people, and not by one of their employees even though he be the captain of a ship.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman is perhaps in order in submitting his question, because it is one of public import, but he is not in order in making an argument under the guise of a question, which he did in the latter portion of his remarks.


Arthur Meighen: I must admit that I have
never had the alleged speech drawn to my attention until this moment, nor did I know until the hon. gentleman arose that we had a captain in our service by the name of Captain Adams. I do not know whether I should assume that Captain Adams is aware that the laws of Canada are made by the representatives of the Canadian people, but if I have any reason to believe that he does not know that, we will take occasion to inform him.



ARMOURIES FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: I should like to draw the
attention of the Government, and particularly of the Minister of Militia and Defence, to a despatch in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday, upon which I shall put a question to the hon. gentleman. The despatch is concerning an incident at Windsor, Ontario, where an official of the Canadian Government is reported to have made

a statement which may be regarded as an interference with freedom of speech and a just cause of offence to a neighbouring people. I shall not read the whole speech, but very briefly it is to the effect that the Ontario Referendum Committee had arranged to hold a meeting in a Government building, the armouries, that it was contemplated that among the speakers at that meeting would be an American gentleman sometimes known as "Pussyfoot" Johnson, and that the Commanding Officer of the Militia who was in charge of the building refused to issue a permit on the ground that this gentleman was coming. The Commanding Officer is reported to have said:
The Referendum Committee is welcome to use the armouries for meetings, as it has in the past, but} I will not countenance bringing foreign agitators from the United States to Canada. We have trouble enough without that. England did not want Johnson, and Canada does not want him. Canadian or English speakers will be welcome.
Without comment, I desire to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence whether he is aware of the facts of the case, and whether it is the intention of the Government to uphold this official in his refusal to allow a public meeting to be held in the armouries.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Militia and Defence):: In answer to my hon. friend's question I may say that yesterday morning a gentleman named the Rev. Mr. Oaten called at the Department of Militia and Defence and requested the privilege of using the Armoury building at Windsor for the purpose of a meeting under the auspices of the Dominion Alliance, and I at once gave instructions by wire to the headquarters of the Military District at London, in which district the city of Windsor is, to grant permission for the use of the Armoury upon the usual terms-the usual terms being that the buildings are not required at that particular time for military purposes, that a fee of $10 is charged, and that a patrol from the local fire brigade will be maintained during the meeting to protect the property.


Charles Murphy: During a temperance meeting?


Hugh Guthrie: The policy decided upon by the Government in regard to the use of these Armoury bulidings for the purposes of public meetings is briefly this: Any reputable body of citizens may have the privilege of using the buildings providing

they comply with the terms I have just stated. That for the last ten months, at all events, has been the policy of the department. I know nothing about the meeting of the man who is known as "Pussyfoot" Johnson, whose name was not drawn to my attention. I knew nothing of the alleged refusal at Windsor, but I gave orders yesterday morning and the telegram went to military headquarters at London. The news will go to Windsor, so I assume the meeting will take place in due course.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. F. S. CAHILL (Pontiac):: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways whether it is his intention to lay on the Table of the House this year a report of the Canadian National Railways, and, if so, when?


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: I have not yet received a
report from the management. I expect it shortly and will lay it on the Table immediately on receipt of it.
CANADIAN MERCANTILE MARINE On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough) :: With reference to the question asked by my hon. friend, I might say to the Minister of Railways that there is a general desire, not only on the part of members on this side of the House, but in the country as well, to have some information regarding the expenditures and the financial operations of the Canadian Mercantile Marine. Does the minister intend to give to the House a detailed statement of the financial operations of the Mercantile Marine showing the business for the year ended December 31 last?


John Dowsley Reid: I intend within a very few days to give to the House my annual statement with reference to the railways. So far as the Canadian Mercantile Marine is concerned, I may inform my hon. friend that it is the intention of the Minister of Marine (Hon. Mr. Ballantyne) to make a statement regarding the operations of that branch of the public service. I understand that he will have that statement ready within a few days.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: May I ask the Minister of Railways to state precisely on what date he and the Minister of Marine purpose presenting the statements to which reference has been made. If he cannot do that, will he tell the House

whether those statements will he made before or after the Easter holidays?


John Dowsley Reid: I am sorry I am not in a position to answer my hon. friend, for the reason that the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ball'antyne) is ill just now and I do not know how long he may he confined to his house.



BY-ELECTIONS-DATE OF WRITS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: I notice in the press the statement that the Government intends to issue the writ for the by-election in York-Sunbury, but that the issuance of the writ for the by-election in Yamaska will be deferred to a later date. Is that report correct? If not, will the Government inform the House when we may expect the writs for the several vacancies now existing?


Arthur Meighen: I did not authorize the report in question and know not how it reached the press. The matter stands in exactly the same position as when inquiry was last made, and my answer must be the same.



TARIFF REVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: One of the Government Organs
this morning states that there will probably be no general tariff revision this session. Will the Minister of Finance affirm or deny that statement?	*


Right Hon.   S@: I am afraid I must deny it.
I can very truthfully say that I had nothing to do with the publication of that report. However, I may say that the work is going on not only day by day, but by day and night.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I ask the Minister
of Finance, notwithstanding the statement he now makes, whether there will be a general tariff revision this session?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: The work is
in progress-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Tedious.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not so tedious, perhaps, as the hon. gentleman may think; there are several very interesting facts in connection with it. For example, there are very strong demands
from Quebec for a very heavy protection on tobacco, and I am sure that is something that must interest my hon. friend. It gives room for a great deal of anxious thought. The time at which the tariff will be completed depends very largely, not only on the amount of detail work there is, but on the frequency of demands made for consideration of different items.



DATE OF BUDGET SPEECH

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: Will the Minister of Finance say whether there is any truth in the statement published in the Ottawa correspondence of the Montreal Star on Saturday last to the effect that his Budget Speech will be delivered about a week or so after Easter?


Right Hon.   S@: There, again, I fear the answer must be the same as I have already given.


Mr. PARENT:: No answer at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That may be, but, unfortunately, I can do no better.


William Stevens Fielding: "Wait and see".



FOREIGN AGITATORS AND ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec S.) :: With reference to the previous question put to the Minister of Militia and answered by him, I should like to ask him, in his capacity as Acting Solicitor General, whether or not he can tell the House that the presence in Canada of foreign agitators during an election is not distinctly contrary to the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act passed last year?


Hugh Guthrie: Speaking from
recollection, I think there is some clause in the Franchise Act passed last session in regard to this point. However, my memory is not very clear on the subject. I will therefore refer the hon. member to the provisions of the Act.


Charles Gavan Power: That being the case, will
the Acting Solicitor General be pleased to confer with the Minister of Militia in order that the Minister of Militia may not go wrong on the law of the land?



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen (Prime Minister), that the House go into Committee of Supply:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, before this motion carries I should like to point out to the Government the impossibility of this House proceeding intelligently with a consideration of the Estimates: until it has before it the full report of the Auditor General. There is no single right, or duty, or function of the Commons of greater importance than that of exercising careful scrutiny and control over public expenditures. Of so great importance has that function been recognized, that Parliament has framed special machinery by law with a view of insuring the control which the House of Commons should have. A part of that machinery is the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act which has a special provision respecting the presentation to Parliament of the Auditor General's Report. That provision has been drafted by Parliament with the object of ensuring the presentation of the Auditor General's report in complete form to the House of Commons at an early date. May I quote to the House the chapter and section to which I refer? It is chapter 24, section 48 of the Revised Statutes and reads as follows:
The Minister of Finance shall cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Auditor General on or before the thirtieth day of June in every year, showing the issues made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the fiscal year, ended on thirty-first day of March preceding, for services directly under his control.
Such accounts and reports of the Auditor General thereon shall be laid before the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance on or before the thirty-first clay of October next following, if Parliament is then sitting, or if not sitting, then within one week after Parliament is next assembled.
Hon. members will see that the provisions of the law in regard to the presentation to Parliament of the Auditor General's Report are in brief-that the report should be presented to Parliament, if it is in session, not later than the 31st of October, but if assembled at a later date, then within one week after it has assembled. This Parliament assembled on February 14th. We are now at the 15th of March, more than one month after the date of reassembling, and we have not as yet before us the full report of the Auditor General, nor are we able to obtain from the hon. the Minister of Finance, a statement as to when the full report will be presented. Mr. Speaker, I desire to point out that the Government is acting in direct violation of the law of the land in not presenting this report to Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Act to which I have just referred.

When this matter was brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance a day or two ago my hon. friend made rather light of it. He stated that in delaying the presentation of the report he was but following an immemorial custom, or something to that effect. I have taken the trouble to compare the dates of presentation of the Reports of the Auditors General to Parliament in the last Parliament under the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier with a corresponding number of years of this Parliament, and I should like to give to the House the facts respecting the differences under the two Administrations.
The Parliament of 1907 assembled on ' November 28th, of that year, for the session of 1907-08. Volume 3 of the Report was presented on November 28th, 1907, the very day on which Parliament assembled; volume 1 on December 2nd, and volume 2 on December 17th. In other words all of the reports of the Auditor General were before Parliament before the end of the calendar year of 1907. Parliament in the session of 1909 assembled on January 21st. On January 21st of that year the Auditor General's Report was brought down-there was not the loss of a day. Parliament for the session of 1909-10 assembled on November 11th, and volumes 1 and 3 of the Auditor General's Report were presented on the following day. Volume 2 was presented on January 12th, 1910. Parliament for the session of 191011 assembled on November 17th. On November 21st, four days later, the full report of the Auditor General was presented to Parliament. In other words in the last Parliament of the Administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the Auditor General's Report twice within that time was presented in full before the end of the calendar year in which the fiscal year ended, and in no instance was the report later than February 23. Now, the fiscal year ends, as hon. members know, on the 31st of March, so that during the years of the Liberal Administration which I have just mentioned there was in each one a period of from over one to three full months when the House had before it the Auditor General's Report, thereby permitting a full discussion on the Estimates before the end of the fiscal year had been reached.
Now let me contrast with that statement, the facts in regard to matters as they have developed under the present Government. Parliament for the session of 1917 assembled on January 18th', 1917. Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 were not brought

down until April 19, three months after Parliament reassembled and nineteen days after we had entered on a new fiscal year. Parliament for the session of 1918 assembled on March 18th of that year. Volume 4 of the Auditor General's Report was not brought down until April 22nd, over a month after Parliament had assembled and twenty-two days after we had entered upon the new fiscal year. Parliament for the session of 1919 assembled on February 20th, 1919. Volume 4 of the Auditor General's Report was not brought down until April 22nd, over two months after Parliament had reassembled and twenty-two days after the beginning of the new fiscal year. Parliament for the session of 1920 assembled on February 26th of that year. Volume 4 of the report was not brought down until May 17th, nearly three months after Parliament had reassembled and a month and a half after the beginning of the new fiscal year. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there has been a violation by the Government of the statute governing this matter for every year during the past five years. We seem to be getting into the practice of ignoring completely the statute which has been framed, as I have already mentioned, for the express purpose of enabling the Commons to exercise control over public expenditure which it is its first and most important duty to perform. There are possibly a number of explanations for this delay. I should hesitate to say that it is a deliberate device on the * part of the Government to prevent Parliament from having information to which it is rightly entitled in considering matters of public expenditure. I do not hesitate to say, however, that one cause is that members of the Government have not been attending to the business of administration as they should have been attending to it. We witnessed the spectacle last year in Ottawa that for the greater part of the fall months it was impossible to bring together a quorum of ministers. Some ministers were in Switzerland, others were in Spain, others were in Belgium, others were in France, others were in England, some were on the Atlantic coast, others were on the Pacific-they were everywhere excepting in Ottawa attending to their several departments. The result is that instead of public business being in a form which permits of Parliament proceeding in an expeditious and intelligent way we are obliged day
after day to call for reports which instead of being presented promptly are not only still incomplete but so incomplete that the Government can give no_ definite information as to when they will be available. May I also mention this fact? Hon. members opposite have been saying throughout the country in a somewhat boastful manner that the Opposition have done very little in the way of criticism of Government expenditures before the Public Accounts Committee. I ask my right hon. friend how it is possible to criticize expenditures when the volumes which contain the particulars in regard to these expenditures are not presented to Parliament in accordance with the requirements of the law. Let me point this out: The hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned a day or two ago that he had brought down certain volumes of the Auditor General's Report and that only one remained to be tabled. The one remaining is the really important one inasmuch as most of the matters that are controversial or contentious appear to be included in or referred to in volume 4. Parliament has placed before it statements which may be passed upon more or less without considerable discussion, the really important controversial subjects are necessarily held over until volume 4 is down. They arrive then for discussion at a time in the session when business has already been continued for a considerable period, the Government starts its late sittings at nights and on into the mornings, and an intelligent and careful discussion of public matters becomes next to impossible. Let me cite just one example. I have here volume II of the Auditor General's report for the present year, part K to SS. Under the summary of expenditure and revenue of the Department of Militia and Defence the following figures are given:
Salaries under statute	$	18,849 43
Civil Government salaries and
contingencies	
208,797	00Militia and Defence', general.. ..	4,616,781	00Miscellaneous	
1,394,825	00
The details for these particular summaries are given in this report. But here is the next item:
War appropriation, $247,997,725.
And the reference to the particulars under that heading is Part ZZ; in other words, volume four, which as yet we do not know when we are likely to receive. This expenditure of $247,000,000 odd on account

of War Appropriation at this particular time cannot be scrutinized too carefully either in this House or before the Public Accounts committee, and I submit that Parliament is helpless in discussing that expenditure without having before it the reports, which it is entitled to have.
This delay on the part of the Government is the less excusable inasmuch as the matter was expressly brought to its attention on two or three occasions during our last session. When we were discussing Supplementary Estimates on June 7 last I took occasion to address the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) as follows:
I want to say, not by way of threat but simply that hon. gentlemen opposite will understand the position of the Opposition, that if the Government of the day should by any possibility be in office next year we shall not he willing to make these advances.
I was referring then- and I think the Government would do well to consider this particular feature at the moment-to the practice which my hon. friend asked us to adopt of voting a portion of the Supply en bloc at the end of the fiscal year before there had been any opportunity of considering the Estimates. I was pointing out to my hon. friend that there were very strong reasons for taking exception to that practice, and I drew his attention to the circumstance that while we were ready to concur last session to oblige the Government, we would not do so at a subsequent session if the Government was negligent in calling Parliament together at an early date and in providing the reports which we were entitled to have before us. I said to my hon. friend:
We shall expect the Government to call Parliament earlier than was done this year and to have public business sufficiently under way to enable the due control to be exercised over public expenditures which Parliament ought to have.
My hon. friend made this reference to my remarks:
I hope that next year the session will commence in the month of January.
Then the the very last day of the session the matter was again brought up, because we on this side of the House realized the significance of the Government's attitude in appearing indifferent to the demands of the law in the particular mentioned, and on the first day of July, the day Parliament .prorogued, I again took occasion to draw the Government's attention in the following words to the wisdom of presenting the Estimates at an earlier date: tMr. Mackenzie King.]
Might I take advantage of this moment again to suggest to the ^Government that if by any possibility they should be in office this fall thev consider the advisability of calling the session at an early date, so that we will not again be confronted with a situation such as we have had on this occasion, of reaching the month of July with a very large proportion of Estimates to be hurriedly passed in the last remaining twenty-four hours. I trust the Government will make a point not only of bringing down its Estimates as early as possible, but of affording early opportunity for a consideration of them. We of the Opposition-if we are still in opposition-will not agree to give the Government any votes on account if that can be avoided. The public interest in these matters must be protected as far as possible.
My right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who was acting Prime Minister at the time, gave the House this quasi assurance:
But the Government, as it always has done, will try and get the session on as early ds conveniently possible; and, as it always has done, it will have a body of Estimates ready for the Opposition almost from the time that the House gets into working order.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that assembling Parliament in February when it is contemplated that Parliament shall assemble in November, is not bringing Parliament together "as early as conveniently possible".
Let me conclude with a reference to what was said by my hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). It was, I think, practically the last word spoken in the last session. At page 4589 the hon. gentleman is reported as follows:
It is one thing to have a body of Estimates laid before us; it is another thing to have a proper opportunity presented to discuss them. It is the opportunity to discuss the Estimates that has been delayed in many cases.
That is the point of which we are complaining at the moment. There is not an opportunity intelligently to discuss these Estimates until we have in its completed form the Auditor General's report of the preceding fiscal year, and until we have several other reports which have already been asked for, and concerning which we can get no definite information from the Government. I think, Sir, that until we get a definite assurance from the Government that we are going to have a proper opportunity of discussing the Estimates with reports in their complete and full form we would not be justified in proceeding at the present moment with the consideration of any portion of those Estimates.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I hope that
I will not again be misinterpreted if

I say that I see nothing in the remarks of the hon. gentleman that would warrant the high tone of voiee and apparent indignation with which they were delivered. It is quite true that the law calls for the presentation of the Auditor General's report within a week of the opening of each session; and it is quite true that that is most desirable if it can be procured; and, further, it is quite true that the presence of the Auditor General's report for the preceding year is of much value in the discussion of the Estimates for the succeeding year. But alongside those considerations must be set the fact that the Auditor General's report is not prepared by the members of the Government or by officers directly under them. That report is prepared by the Auditor General and his officers, and they bear a relation to the Government of any day under the constitution of this country that I think hon. members fully understand. Nothing has been done on the part of the Government, and nothing has been withheld so far as I am aware-and I am sure I am right, for I think I know all the facts connected with the. case-designed to deter the presentation of the Auditor General's report. What would be the object of the Government in so acting? And if wc had none, does the hon. gentleman want to insinuate that the Auditor Geheral would withhold his report at the instigation of the Government? It is merely a matter of getting through the physical labour that must be accomplished before the Auditor General's report comes down.
Now, while it is better and, indeed, essential, that before we proceed far with the materials which we are presenting to the House by way of Estimates we should have the Auditor General's report relating thereto before Parliament at the time, that is the case now. Three volumes of that report are down, two of them have been down for some time, and we are quite content that those departments -and those alone-as respects which the Auditor General's report is down shall be now considered by the House in the way of Estimates.
My hon. friend says there are certain estimates-if I understood his remarks correctly in connection with a quotation he made from some reports that have been brought down-there are some items in the report which bear reference to volume 4. If that is the case, certainly the Government would not ask, if anybody objected, that anything relating to that item be gone
on with in the Estimates. Indeed, it is not necessary that we should go on with them; we have three volumes here and we have ample reason to proceed. Surely the time has come when we should start upon the Estimates. I am not able to understand the logic of my hon. friend's argument when he says: "In previous sessions we have not had time to discuss the Estimates, therefore this session I am going to hold up the House and not let it get to the Estimates."


Georges Parent: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad to have the approval of my hon. friend from Quebec;
I know that would appeal to his good judgment.
Now, one would really think that some innovation had been risked by the Government in launching upon a career of violation of law, and the hon. gentleman selected two or three years during which the late Liberal Government were in power to show that they had complied with the law, as opposed to this Government, which did not comply with it. In order to be fair in the presentation of the facts I am going to adduce, let me say that the Auditor General's Department held exactly the same relation to the government under preceding governments in Canada as it holds to-day. But the delay of which' my hon. friend now complains so bitterly and in language of rather amusing indignation was exceeded three times over under the government of which he himself was a member; and while it was exceeded the Estimates were gone on with in the House at the request of the government of which he was a member. I have not been able to find a single year -my search has necessarily been hasty, because I had no notice from my hon. friend that he intended to launch this attack- I have not been able to find a single year in which the Government of which he was a member did comply with the law. It may be that a year can be found, but I could not find any in going hastily through these figures furnished by the Finance Department. I will read them exactly as they are, and the House can judge for itself.


1906; volume 1 was brought down on the 4th of February, 1907.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend will pardon me, he must be misinformed, because the figures which I quoted show that volume 1 was brought down on December 2, 1907.


Arthur Meighen: I am talking about
1906-07. The hon. gentleman made a careful selection of his years, but there are other years besides those he gave.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt my right hon. friend, but he was referring to the time when I was a member of the Government, and I was confining my remarks to that period.


Arthur Meighen: I said, the Government of which he was a member. He became a member in 1908. We will see how they lived up to the law in 1908, 1909 and 1910.


Samuel William Jacobs: We are now having some ancient history.


Arthur Meighen: It is not so very ancient. At all events, 1906 is not so very much more ancient than 1908.
For the year 1906-07 the House met on November 22; the first volume was brought down on February 4, 1907. This year the first volume was brought down not long after the opening of the session. I have not the exact date; perhaps the Minister of Finance will give it later. I might add also that that volume brought down on February 4, 1907, was only a portion of the first volume; the other portion was brought down on February 8, 1907-that is the way my notes read. The second volume was brought down on the first day of March, three months and eight days after the opening of the session. The third volume was brought down before the first -on the 9th day of January, 1907, nearly two months after the opening of the session, and the last volume, relating to the Post Office Department and the Mounted Police, was brought down on the 22nd of February, 1907, or exactly three months after the session opened. We are now at the end of the first month of this session, and my hon. friend comes'into the House in this great state of indignation-


Mr. BUREAU:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: My Hon. friend from
Three Rivers appears to follow in every particular and to share the indignation of my hon. friend. If I am not wrong, the hon. member for Three Rivers was a mem-

ber of this Government that delayed three months in bringing down the report of 1906-07. Moreover, he was Solicitor-General, I believe-legal adviser-so that he would know they had to bring it down in a week or be branded as violators of law.
In the following year, 1907-08, the House met on the 28th of November, 1907. The first volume was brought down on the 29th of November; the second on the 17th of December, almost a month after; the third on the 28th of November. The first and the third were apparently brought down together.


Georges Parent: The same year?


Arthur Meighen: The same year, of
course; did the hon. member think they would bring them down a year after?
For the year 1909-10 the House met on the 20th of January, 1909. The first and third volumes were brought down on the 22nd of January, 1909; I think that is the date given by my hon. friend. The next volume-it is marked here "P.O."; I assume that-figures relating to the Post Office Department were contained in it-was brought down on the 22nd of February, 1909, a delay of a month and two days longer than in the present instance. That was the first year in which my hon. friend was himself a member of the Government. It would have been peculiarity appropriate if he had waited on this occasion for two days more and then he could at least have said that the delay was one day longer than was the case when he himself was a member of the Government. But the next volume was brought down on the 23rd of February, so that, in the case of two volumes out of three, the same period exactly had elapsed of which he complains to-day. In the first year in which he was a member of the Government, only one was brought down and two remained after the expiration of the same time of which he complains today. Now three are down and only one remains, and my hon. friend is filled with indignation. Moreover, the expenditures, operations and activities of the Government are not only far greater to-day than they were in 1908 and 1909, but they spread over a far wider area and necessitate much greater delay in the preparation of these publications than was the case at that time.
For the year 1909-10 the House met on November 11. Two volumes, the first and third, were brought down on November 12. Volume 2 was not brought down until the 12th of January, or over two months after the House met. That was the next year in

which my hon. friend was a member of the Government; still he upbraids this Government for delay and violation of the law, and says that in the interests of the taxpayers of Canada he cannot allow one dollar of supply to be voted until the Auditor General's report comes down. It is very unfortunate for my hon. friend that he was for these three years a member of the Government.


Mr. EDWARDS:: And for the country.


Arthur Meighen: It may have been unfortunate for the country, but on that subject I am not speaking now.
Now, in respect of the years to which my hon. friend refers, those since 1917, it must be remembered that during that period this country was at war; that there was an overseas ministry of militia; that the returns from that department ^particularly could not be in at the same time as the returns from other departments, and, furthermore, that every department of this Government was being conducted under difficulties of which the Government preceding it knew nothing at all. There would, therefore, be abundant reason, abundant necessity, for delay in these years that did not exist in his time by any means. Even yet there are returns from overseas-I cannot speak authoritatively on this, but I am very much disposed to think that this fourth volume is not down at the present time because of delayed returns that even yet must come from overseas. I understand that the fourth volume refers chiefly to war appropriations; but the fourth volume will be down; we have reason to believe that it will be down in very good time. In the meantime it is suggested only that the House shall go on with such Estimates as are fully covered in the volumes already on the Table. I do not think one single year can be pointed to during which my hon. friend or the hon. gentleman beside him were members of the Government when Estimates were not gone on with before the complete set of 'volumes of the Auditor General's Report were on the Table. If this be the case, by what show of reasoning does my hon. friend ask this House to block the Estimates and even to refuse to go into Supply before the last volume of the Auditor General's Report is on the Table? The only reason is that there is no better one to present, that there is nothing better to fight with-


Georges Parent: Good enough.


Arthur Meighen: -and consequently it
is "good enough," because something must
be found. It is surely important that we arrive at Supply at an early date. It is complained that Parliament did not meet in time. Again references could be made to previous meetings of Parliament, but it has been the practice for some time to call Parliament after the New Year, instead of before, and many hon. members-and they are not all on this side of the House either -have urged that that practice be followed, because of the delay and loss of time entailed in going and coming for the very short period prior to the Christmas holidays. It was hoped that this year we could meet earlier that last. We have met earlier than last year; indeed, we met almost two weeks earlier than last year. We met on a Monday, and no time whatever of the representatives of the people was lost by adjourning until the next week. We immediately got down to business; the debate on the Address was proceeded with; it was not rushed through by the Government ; all the time asked for by the Opposition was given, and the debate continued at considerable length after members of the Government had desisted,-it continued at the length it did because hon. gentlemen opposite determined that it should so continue and they themselves conducted the debate. After the debate on the Address was closed, there was abundant material before Parliament for the consideration of Parliament. Already only a week or so afterwards, the Estimates are laid on the Table, and we ask the House to proceed to a consideration of those Estimates, in order that the very thing of which my hon. friends complain shall not take place; in order that Parliament may early in the session get to those Estimates, consider them fully and without haste, and conserve the public interest thereby. If that be desirable, surely then it is not desirable that, for reasons such as my hon. friend has adduced, the consideration of Estimates should be deferred.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, we are told by Shakespeare's Dogberry that " comparisons are odorous." They are sometimes interesting though they may not be helpful. I have been gathering some information from the speeches of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen). They have been giving me some dates, and from those dates I learn-I am assuming that the figures given by my right hon. friend are correct-that in times past, some years ago, the Auditor General's Report was rather

slow in coming down; but whether it was due to the criticism of hon. gentlemen opposite or the pious resolve on the part of the Minister of Finance at that date, I cannot say, but, according to the Prime Minister a great change came about, and in the last Parliament which was in the time of a Liberal government, according to the dates given by the leader of the Opposition and not disputed by the leader of the Government, it appears the Auditor General's Report came down very promptly.


Arthur Meighen: No, nearly two months after the opening of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: In one case only.


Arthur Meighen: In two, if not three


William Stevens Fielding: I understood from my right hon. friend that the dates given by the leader of the Opposition were very favourable; but he said that there were other dates, and so he went back to ancient history. There is, however, a more serious point than that. It appears to me that my right hon. friend has failed to appreciate adequately the importance which, not only these public documents, but others as well, have in regard to the business of the House, and I should be glad if I could assist him to get a better appreciation of the importance, the necessity, of having public documents brought down at an early date, without the need of commenting upon times past and without undertaking to make any comparison of one government with another.
The leader of the Opposition has truly said that the first and chief function of Parliament is to control public expenditures, and the documents relating to public expenditures are of paramount importance. We must first have the Estimates; we must have the Public Accounts; then we must have the report of the Auditor General for the year that is past. Before Parliament is asked to vote additional Supply to the Government, it is reasonable that Parliament shall have an account of how the money previously voted was spent, so that those three series of volumes, the Estimates, Public Accounts, and the Auditor General's report, are of vital importance. Irrespective of what anybody is doing now or has done in the past, I should like the Government to appreciate the great importance of so adjusting public affairs that those reports will come down at the earliest possible moment. I do not emphasize
4 p.m. the fact that the law requires that the Auditor General's Re-

port shall be brought down within so many days of the opening of Parliament. That is always found to be difficult and, perhaps, impossible. I do not 'insist on the Auditor General or the Government being tied up to the days mentioned; but an effort should be made to bring down those reports, and other reports as well, at an early date of the session. The whole basis of the business of the Government and of Parliament is that we shall have before us the reports of the various departments of the Government and when days, weeks and months roll on and we do not get those reports, the purpose of Parliament is defeated.
My right hon. friend says that the Auditor General is not responsible to the Government. That is true only in a measure; it is true that the Auditor General is an independent officer; that he can be dismissed only by a vote of the House. But it is not true that the Auditor General's department is so absolutely disconnected as my right hon. friend suggests. The Auditor General is my right hon. friend's own appointee, and he has a reasonable right to ask that that official shall attend to his duties. I am not suggesting that the present Auditor General, who was a clerk in that department in my own days and who is, I believe, a very capable man, is in any way in the wrong. But when my right hon. friend says that he is not responsible for the Auditor General, he is getting away from parliamentary responsibility which should extend to the Auditor General. I understand the Auditor General's complaint is that he has not a sufficient staff. Whose fault is that? It is the business of the Government to see that he has the staff that he needs, and that he is facilitated in bringing down his report at the earliest possible moment, and no arguments that the Government can make can absolutely absolve them from responsibility in that regard.
It has been said that there has been difficulty in regard to the printing, but there should not be any difficulty now. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) told us the other day of the immense improvement that had been made in the Printing Bureau by the	dismissal of	four hundred
and fifty men after many years' service. Well now, if they have improved it so much, if, as he says, the business is done more efficiently, might we not reasonably ask that these various public reports

should be ready at an early date? Behind that, is the question of the date when Parliament shall meet. I know that is a question on which there is some difference of opinion, but I want again to put forth my views 'in favour of carrying out what was the design of Parliament when the fiscal year was changed. Formerly the fiscal year ended on the 1st of July, and Parliament usually met in the month of January or February. That gave a period of seven months in which to get the public reports ready, a reasonable time, and when Parliament met in January or February, as a rule most of the reports were ready, or were shortly afterwards. But then there was this great difficulty: when Parliament met in January or February business men complained that they were kept here all through the summer until the hot weather, and many a business man who would be willing to give his time through the winter to the affairs of the nation was not prepared to sacrifice his time and neglect his business affairs away on until midsummer. So in the interests of efficient government, and to encourage men of the right stamp to give their time to the public service, it was decided to change the fiscal year, and by common consent on both sides of the House it was changed so as to end on the last day of March instead of on June 30. There was a gain of three months there in which to get the public documents ready. You could have seven months under the old system. You now have your fiscal year ending on 31st March, and you could meet in November or December and have just as much time in which to get the public documents ready as they had in former times when they met in January or February. Why cannot we do it? I am not making this a matter of party controversy, for I know we had some difficulty ourselves in doing it. But I think this Parliament could very well meet in November and dispose of the debate on the Address and a great deal of formal business, and make a good start on the business of the House before Christmas, when a reasonable adjournment could be had. Then after the Christmas vacation we could come back and end our business in May. This year-I do not know what plans are in the minds of the Government or hon. gentlemen opposite-all the indications are that if business drags along as it is doing now we shall be here in May, June, and July, and Heaven knows how much later. My hon. friend says that members on both sides of the House prefer to meet after the New Year. Notwithstanding that, the merit of the system itself should commend itself to the House. It is desirable that these public documents should be got ready earlier, and I think we should agree that it is desirable Parliament should meet earlier and not be kept sitting here until July, August or later, as sometimes is the case now. Unless we can agree to meet at an earlier date and get the business well advanced at an earlier date, I do not see how we are going to carry on the business of the country efficiently, and make the conditions of Parliament satisfactory to a large class of the best type of men in the country whom we should desire to have co-operate with us in Parliament. Therefore, the thought I would give to my right hon. friend, without finding any fault or entering into comparisons between now and the old days, is that he should appreciate in larger measure the great importance of having these documents ready in time, and, if necessary, get a large staff for the Auditor General and for the Printing Bureau. Let him get back these 450 men if it is going to give us the documents in time, so that Parliament may be able to meet earlier and have the documents ready at a reasonably early period in the session.


Right Hon.   S@: I confess that I have a good deal of difficulty in reconciling the present debate with the hon. gentleman's great anxiety that business should be proceeded with and the House adjourned at an early date. There are one or two faults which are laid at the door of this Government. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) gives two concrete suggestions. He makes a concrete suggestion as to the staff of the Auditor General, and another concrete suggestion as to the staff of the Printing Bureau. Now, if we have any ground for complaint in the matter of these criticisms it is rather to be found in the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition that the Government are responsible for what the Auditor General does; because the Government responsibility so far as the Auditor General is concerned is to supply him with the means wherewith to carry on his work, and, having done that, to' refrain from interfering with him in his work in any way, to turn him either this way or that. And we are not interfering with him.
Let us deal first of all with the questions of staffs. I would like to make it perfectly clear to the House that there is

no trouble about the printing of this report. The delay is not in the printing. So far as the staff of the Auditor General is concerned, I do not know how much larger a staff the hon. gentleman thinks the Auditor General should have.


William Stevens Fielding: Enough to get the
work out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It might get
to that point where there WQuld be so many that they would be tumbling over each other and the work pot be got out. It might be like conditions at the Printing Bureau at one time. We had employed in the Auditor General's department for the year 1920-1921, 114 employees; we have for this year 158 employees, or an increase of 44 permanent employees in that comparatively small department.


Mr. ROBB:: Is the minister satisfied
that the new employees are just as competent as the old ones?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not
going to say anything as to any personal knowledge I have as to the competency of the staff of the Auditor General. We are relying upon the Auditor General. In the main there have been but very few changes, but so far as the new appointments are concerned, the Government have received no complaint from the Auditor General as to their efficiency. But the publishing of the fourth volume of the Auditor General's report does not depend so much on the size of the staff, as upon whether the necessary information has come to hand. The Auditor General says Jae has not got all the information yet, and that he cannot get it before the end of the month.


Charles Murphy: Who is in default?
That is the point.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not
know that I can say that he is in default or not. If he has not the information, he cannot very well get on with that work. It must be remembered that the Auditor General is an entirely independent official. There has been no interference with him. On the other hand, he has been urged to get the report out. He reports that some information has not yet been received. He has to-day a task of infinitely greater difficulty than in pre-war days. The volumes are greater, and the weight of the burden is infinitely greater. Bjit even in pre-war days, when there was not quite as much reason for delay as there now is, hon. gentlemen then in charge of affairs thought

it would be a good thing that progress should be made with the Estimates as and when progress could be made. It was thought it would be a good thing that the reports of the Auditor General should be brought down from time to time'when they were ready. I note for example, that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's is thus reported in Hansard of 1906, at page 6,126. There had been a discussion as to the advisability of bringing down the Auditor General's report in instalments, and this is what my hon. friend said:
In regard to the next session, the circumstances are so exceptional that we can hardly hope to have the ordinary blue books ready for the early part of the session. But, as to our practice generally, I think that the most that can be said is that, where there is a probability of delay in the presentation of the Auditor General's Report, it would be better to have it brought down in instalments.
But if in ordinary sessions there is likely to be delay in presenting the completed volume, and if the business of Parliament is likely to be retarded on that account, I think it would be better to present the report in instalments.
It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the greatest charge against us is that we have followed not only the action but the advice of the hon. member; and, frankly, I do not think that we have committed any grave offence in doing so. The hon. member went on to say:
I think that an examination of the records will show that there has been little delay ip any case-the Auditor General's Report has been brought down within a few days of the time specified by law
If, in future, there i3 danger of delay which will impede the business of the House, I agree that the report should be brought down in instalments, because it is the basis of much of the business of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: Had there been any complaint that the reports were delayed, to which this was a reply? It might be curious to know who was complaining at that time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I much regret that owing to the fact that we have had somewhat hurriedly to prepare for this discussion I have had no opportunity of reading Hansard myself. I merely give to the House the extract from my hon. friend's remarks with which I have been furnished. Now, Mr. Speaker, what real difficulty is there? The public accounts have been tabled for some time-since the 8th March. We have already got the first three volumes of the * Auditor General's Report and they are very largely complete in themselves. They are not complete in so far as demobilization items are con-

cerned. The demobilization items are contained in volume 4, and it is because of those items that there is a delay in connection with that volume. The demobilization votes refer only to certain items in the Estimates. Militia and Defence, Labour, Justice, Marine and Fisheries, Agriculture and Privy Council, the report of the Soldiers' Settlement Board, and of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department, are contained in the fourth volume; and as the right hon. leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen) has pointed out, we are not now seeking to go into Supply in connection with any of those matters which are dealt with in volume 4. Almost the whole of the Estimates can be dealt with without the slightest reference to, or the slightest help from volume 4. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the objection is one calculated to delay the proceedings of the House, and it can serve no useful purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a discrepancy between the Prime Minister and myself in regard to some of the statistics given. In quoting for the year 1907, I wish my right hon. friend would mention the dates he has in connection with the presentation of reports that year. I find a difference between his dates and mine:


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Do you mean 1906-7?	'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, 1907-8.


Arthur Meighen: The House met on November 28, 1907, Volume 1 was presented on November 29; Volume 2, on December 17; Volume 3 on November 28.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When my right hon. friend spoke before, I did not think he gave November 28.


George Green Foster: That was the date given; I took down the items as he read them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then his
figures are correct.


John Howard Sinclair: I have listened with a
great deal of interest to the statements of the Minister of Finance and of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, but no good reason has yet been given to the House why the Auditor General's report should not be on the Table. There is one fact that we must not lose sight of, and that is that owing to the change in the fiscal year all the items to be found in
the Auditor General's report, when presented, will be at least one year old. The Auditor General's report will give us information only up to the thirty-first day of March, 1920, and as it is now bordering on the thirty-first of March, 1921, all the items that will be contained in the Auditor General's report, when we receive it, were expended one year go. Consequently, there can be no fair argument, if the department is awake at all, why the report should not be placed on the table of the House, as required by law, within one week after the opening of the session. In the old days, when Parliament was supposed to meet in the autumn, the case was different. The Auditor General had only six or seven months to prepare his report. Under the present system, when we meet in February, he has practically a year in which to get his report ready. The Auditor General was a witness last year in an investigation before the Public Accounts Committee. He was asked why he delayed so long in preparing his report, and he gave very unsatisfactory answers. One of the questions asked him was this:
When was the first manuscript sent by you for that current year to the King's Printer to be printed?
What do you suppose was his answer? Now, it was his duty to begin the report immediately after the 31st of March of the previous year, and his answer was that it was on the 17th of November, 1919, that he sent in his first copy to the King's Printer. He appears to have slept for eight months after the close of the previous fiscal year before sending a line to the printer. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is unpardonable; it shows, for one thing, that the department is not doing its duty. I appreciate what the Minister of Finance says, that the Auditor General is a responsible officer and that no interference must be made with his duties. That is all right. But for that very reason, my hon. friend will not go so far as to say that he is not accountable to this Parliament. If the Auditor General decided not to send us his report at all, would Parliament stop sitting? Would it discontinue the consideration of expenditures altogether ? Surely that is not the intention of the law. While the Auditor General is a responsible officer and is supposed to look after the details of his own department free from interference, still the head of the department has a duty to perform; and if it is true that the Auditor General delays for six or seven months, or eight months, in sending his copy to the King's Printer to



be printed, until Parliament is to meet, then it is the duty of the Minister of Finance to draw this matter to his attention and to see to it that the department of the Auditor General does its work.
Now, my right hon. friend, if I heard him correctly, stated in his speech-which consisted largely of post mortems-that the details of the Estimates which the Government are now asking the House to deal with had already been presented to Parliament, and that he was not asking the House to deal with any Estimates that are not already detailed in the Auditor General's report. I think that was the substance of what he said. Now I have the Auditor General's report on my desk and I took occasion to look the matter upv From the Hansard report of last night's sitting I And that it was proposed to deal to-day with the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice. Taking first the Department of Agriculture and referring to volume 1, of the Auditor General's report of this year, page A2, I find the item: Canada Food Board, $48,656.71. Now the Canada Food Board has always been a contentious matter; members of this House will want to know all the details of the expenditure in connection with it. And yet we are told that those details are set forth in part ZZ of volume 4 of the Auditor General's report. So much for the Department of Agriculture.


Arthur Meighen: There would be no
need of that item going on, or any expenditure connected with the Food Board, if hon. gentlemen opposite want it deferred.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: I am speaking of the announcement as to the business to be taken up today which is contained in Hansard. According to Hansard my right hon. friend said that the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice were to be dealt with first.


Arthur Meighen: My point is this: If there is any item in the Auditor General's report which refers to something in the Estimates, and volume 4 of the report is necessary in connection with its discussion, that item can be deferred; there is lots of other work to do until the remainder of the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture.


John Ewen Sinclair: I think it will be difficult for

my right hon. friend to find any item with which we can deal in that case.


Arthur Meighen: Then why defer consideration?


John Ewen Sinclair: I turn up the Auditor General's report containing items of expenditure in connection with the Department of Justice, which is volume 2, page L2, and at the foot of the page I find the sum of $1,644,168.28 as to which we are told the details are set out in volume 4. These are the two Departments whose estimates we are supposed to deal with to-day. Now I think my right hon. friend could not have been looking up the details of the expenditures when he made the announcement that the Estimates of these two Departments are set forth in the Auditor General's report, because the Estimates for both Departments contain items, and large items, which are detailed in volume 4 of the Auditor General's report. It has already been stated in the discussion which has so far taken place that the practice


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce) :: Will my hon, friend allow me just one word? I merely wish to remark that the consideration of certain items could, of course, be postponed, but last night when the House adjourned the Prime Minister, answering a question as to what business would be taken up to-day, spoke as follows:
Supply: Estimates of the Departments of Agriculture and Justice. If we get beyond that, we shall take up the other Government Orders.
The Prime Minister last night expected that we would pass all the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture to-day.


Arthur Meighen: We might get beyond them without passing them.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must
draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the House is not in committee, and that it is absolutely irregular for one hon. member to interject remarks while another hon. member has the floor.


John Ewen Sinclair: I consented to my hon. friend from Beauce making a remark. As a matter of fact I have nearly concluded my speech.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon.
member for Antigonish and Guysborough had no right to give such consent.


John Howard Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, your admonition

will apply to the future. It is not applicable in the present case because it was given too late. The fact has already been remarked that the contentious items in the Estimates are apparently relegated to volume 4 of the Auditor General's report. I have been endeavouring to keep track of the Auditor General's report for some years past, and in other years we have had the same experience, namely that the items which the Opposition desire to investigate are generally placed in volume 4 of the report, and that volume comes down very late in the session when there is not sufficient time to make any investigation into the expenditures. That was the case last year, and the same experience occurred the year before. If we could induce the Minister of Finance to place volume 4 on the Table first we would have very little discussion of this kind. I would therefore make the proposal to my hon. friend that he should print volume 4 before he prints volumes 1, 2 and 3. If he does that, we would get along much better and not have so much discussion about the date on which the Auditor General's report is presented. In practically every department of the Government there are items which are referred to in volume 4. The gross amount will be found in the summary of expenditure in volume 1, and it amounts to more than one-half of the total expenditure of the Government for the year. It reaches the enormous total of $346,612,954.56. Now that is a Very large sum as to which we have no details at the present time, and we shall not have those details until volume 4 is presented to Parliament. As I have said, that sum represents about one-half of the total expenditure for the year and it is composed of items related to almost every department of the Government.


Right Hon.   S@: Just one moment in order to make a remark or two in reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair). He says that if the House really wants to get into Committee on Supply as soon as possible, the Government should make it easy to do so. The Government asks for Supply. The leader of the Opposition says, "You shan't go into Committee of Supply". The Government's position is: Let us get to work as quickly as possible and give a chance to every member in the House to dig in in the matter of Supply. The leader of the Opposition says "No, I am going to stop you from going into Committee of Supply". We say, "Very well, what is the reason?"
58i


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend permit me to make a correction?


George Green Foster: I am not going to state the case unfairly at all. The leader of the Opposition says: "I am going to stop you from going into Committee of Supply". We ask "Why?" My hon. friend replies, "Because there are some portions of the field that we cannot dig over properly owing to the fact that volume 4 of the Auditor General's report has not yet been brought down." Now, if a man is a farmer, and the spring time comes, and the Deity and the weather conditions are favourable to commencing farming operations, and the call is to the farmer to get to work, an obstinate farmer like the leader of the Opposition would say: "No, good Lord, no. Because there is a little bit of land here on my farm that from which you have not yet taken the ice, I am not going to do a stroke of digging until you do take that ice off."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right
hon. friend stated that he wished to present my argument correctly and I am sure he will permit me to repeat exactly what I did say. I have never said that the House should not proceed to go into Committee of Supply, but I have said that it was impossible to proceed intelligently with Supply until we had information that is lacking. I have also said that we ought to be assured that we are going to have a full opportunity of discussing the Estimates in a comprehensive and intelligent way before we go on. That is what I have said; but I have not tried to delay the House from going into Committee of Supply in any way.


George Green Foster: Mr. Speaker,
the delay of the proceedings is apparent if my hon. friend intervenes and a long discussion takes place when the Government is anxious to go into Supply. Then we come to look at the pertinence of his observations as to why the House should be precluded from going into Supply. His first objection is: You have broken the law, and because you have broken the law I am putting in this protest and my party is going to stand behind it. Well, there are only two grounds upon which the hon. gentleman can take that stand-the ground of conscience; and the ground of expediency. As to the former, when we go back to the record of the hon. gentleman himself, we find that he does not stand upon that consistently, because when he was a member of the Liberal Government the

Auditor General's reports were late in coming down. That means that he was a breaker of the law. Then on the ground of expediency and intelligent work in committee on items of the Estimates, I do not think my hon. friend would strain the point to say that if one-half of his field was absolutely fit for cultivation, with all the utensils at hand necessary to carry it on, he could not intelligently farm that part of his property, but would wait a day or two, or a week or two, until the sunlight had made the other part sufficiently dry for cultivation. He works just as intelligently on the portion that he is tilling as if all the rest of the field was prepared for tillage. So it is with regard to this field. The Government brings down Estimates which cover a certain number of items and a certain total of expenditure. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has just admitted that only one-half of the total expenditures of the Government has reference yet to volume 4, and so could not be intelligently undertaken. Granted that that is so, his own admission goes to show that there is one-half of all the expenditures of the Government upon which the Auditor General's reports are already down and which we can intelligently carry through. With reference to the Department of Agriculture spoken of by my hon friend from Guysborough, he found one item of about $40,000 which had relation to a Food Board, and opposite that were tacked the letters " ZZ." That is, out of 123 pages in the Estimates referring to expenditure on agriculture there was one item of about $40,000 for which he could not account until he had volume 4. For most of the other expenditures of the Government we have the Auditor General's report already down. If there be any one item, as the Prime Minister has said, on which explanations as to last year's expenditures will only be available when the fourth volume of the Auditor General's report comes down, thac can stand until the volume is ready. But there is not any rhyme or reason at all, is there in our refusing to go on with those portions of the expenditures of next year in their relation to the volumes that are already down when we take them into consideration with the proposed expenditures for next year? Every Government since I have had experience of governments has always been fortunate in having its ideals a little ahead of its practice. It was so with my hon. friend's Government, and 
it has been so with all other governments: there is always a little space left in which we may excel over former usages; and I will venture to say that if my hon. friend goes back to the beginning of Confederation he will find examples in every Government.
There are three stages in connection with the issue of the Auditor General's report. There is the preparation of the accounts in the different departments. Then those are sent to the Auditor General, and his department is responsible for the auditing of those accounts, and reporting thereon. His report is then sent to the printing department which is responsible for its prompt printing. Now, I am quite certain that all through the administration of all governments there will have been lapses, greater or less, in all these three stages, it is impossible to have perfection. But at the present time the difficulty is not in the printing department-of that I am certain. The Auditor General is, as-has been stated, an officer of the House. While you can recommend to him and urge upon him, he is still master of his own department. I am not aware that he has called for a single clerk to be added to his staff and has been refused, and the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has shown that there were forty-four more members of the Auditor Generals' staff last year than there were the year before. Consequently it is not because of an insufficient staff that the Auditor General's report has been delayed. I think the real reason for the delay, such as it is, in the completion of volume 4 is that that volume has to do very largely with expenditures in relation to the war, for instance, demobilization, chiefly-there were two ministers of War, one overseas and one on this side-and then those other military operations in which several of the other departments were concerned as to expenditures.
But, after all, when we come to think of it, we will reach the conclusion on both sides of the House that after having had this conference the thing to do is to go on with the Estimates-and they will not be pressed where explanations are not forthcoming because of the fact that volume 4 of the Auditor General's report is not yet before the House. We will make progress in that way, we will do our work intelligently, and we will not be subject to any criticism from the country that we are unnecessarily delaying the business of the House.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the sweet reasonableness of the right hon. gentleman's contribution to what he calls this "conference" impels me to say a word or two. If this discussion is to serve any purpose at all, it ought to be in the way of securing an improvement in the future in the bringing down of the Auditor General's report. Now, much of what we have heard from our hon. friends on the other side of the House is designed to shift the real basis of this discussion. The point really at issue, I submit, Sir, is not so much a comparison between the practices of the two Governments as to the dates at which they brought down the Auditor General's reports with reference to the date of the opening of the session, but as to the dates upon which these reports were brought down with reference to the end of the fiscal year; and from that point of view the odds are altogether in favour of the late Liberal administration. If the House will refer to the dates that have been given they will find that under the Liberal administration all reports were down long before the end of the fiscal year, while in the case of our hon. friends , opposite several numbers of the Auditor General's reports were brought down only after the end of the fiscal year-some of them several months afterwards. I submit, Sir, that an improvement in that direction ought to be the outcome of this discussion.
Now, having had some experience in connection with these matters a few years ago, I am not any more enamoured about increasing the staff in this or that department than some of my hon. friends opposite. My experience was not that better work or more speedy results were obtained by increasing the number of employees. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has indicated exactly what the trouble is in the present instance: that delay has been caused the Auditor General by reason of his not getting the material for this report which has not yet been brought down. I may suggest to the Minister of Finance how that difficulty can be overcome, and I can do it by referring him to the method that was adopted in years past. I understand that at present, my hon. friend, in addition to a few other duties, is Acting Secretary of States. If he is, I would refer him to the records of that department for the years 1909, 1910, and the beginning of 1911. He will find that in those years, immediately upon the prorogation of Parliament, notices were sent out to each of the departments reminding them of the date upon which their annual reports had to be presented to Parliament, requesting them to send in the manuscript of these reports upon a certain day, and notifying them that if the manuscript was not sent in a follow-up system would be instituted and they would be given no peace or comfort until the manuscript was fully in the hands of the Auditor General in the first place, and afterwards in the hands of the King's Printer. It was because that follow-up system was pursued literally that my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition was able this afternoon to cite the dates upon which the reports were brought down, showing that, if not strictly within the period required by law, those dates were at least very close to it, during the years of the late Liberal Administration. I would suggest in all kindness to my hon. friend that he see that the same system be adopted and pursued in the future.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I would say this:
I shall certainly have pleasure in looking into the matter, but I think it will be found that the same procedure has been followed.
I find Mr. Mulvey a very attentive and efficient deputy; the matter is in his hands.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Commitee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Civil Government - Agriculture - Salaries, $541,955 ; contingencies, $135,000.
Mr. McCOIG:: Will the minister explain the increase?


Mr. TOLMIE:: It is due to statutory
increases.


Charles Murphy: I observe that there is an increase in the number of employees; while there were 318 last year, 359 are to be provided for this year. Will the hon. gentleman explain what this increase is for?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It is due to an extension of the work generally throughout the country.


Charles Murphy: If my hon. friend will refer to his printed Estimates he will see that the explanation which he has just given cannot be of general application. I understand that the expenditures under Civil Government relate to employees here in Ottawa. Now, under the head of clerks

there is an increase of 5; under the head of junior clerks, an increase of 3; clerk stenographers, an increase of 7; junior clerk stenographers, an increase of 10; office appliance operators, an increase of 2; messenger clerks, an increase of 2. These increases surely must be here in Ottawa, not throughout the country.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes, the increases are as the hon. member has stated. But there has been a great extension of agriculture throughout the country. Our experimental farms are extending their scope; our live stock is extending its scope; and it has been necessary to put more men in the field, and, therefore, to increase the staff at headquarters to carry on the general business of the department. I think it will be found also that the revenue from agriculture has increased very materially in the last few years.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Is it not a fact that some experimental farms have been closed?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No.


Joseph Archambault: Has not the
experimental farm at L'Assomption been closed?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That was rented only
for one year to carry on some tobacco experiments.


Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption-Mont-calm) :: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister argues that no experimental farms have been discontinued these last years, and, in answer to the hon. member from Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archam-bault) who told him that the tobacco experimental farm at L'Assomption had been closed last year, he stated that it was only a venture which had been abandoned. I must say to the hon. minister that he is mistaken, as the experimental farm of L'Assomption had replaced the one which existed for a number of years at Saint-Jacques de l'Achigan, where it did so much towards furthering the tobacco industry of that district. Without consulting me, the department thought fit to close that farm at St. Jacques, and it is then that L'Assomption was selected as the most suitable place for that experimental farm. But, last year, it was wiped out. And yet the location seemed to be so good that it had been thought proper to send the principal officers of the department to the college authorities to induce them to sell the property which had been rented for the establishment of this experimental station. The
rMr. Murphy.]
chief of the Experimental Farms branch and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture had come to L'Assomption to see whether the location would be suitable. It was found to be so suitable that they immediately went to the college authorities to find out whether it could be bought at a reasonable figure. The prices of neighbouring farms were even inquired into, and it was realized that even in the matter of price this property was the most desirable. The officers of the department above named together with the head of the tobacco growing industry, thereupon went to the college authorities and told them: "The price you ask the department is altogether proper, and you can depend upon the Government keeping this farm." This was done with so little hesitancy that the college authorities, counting upon a sure sale, said to the Government representatives: "There is a part of this farm which we could sell at a much higher price than what we have asked from the Government; would you allow us to sell that part? You would still have enough left." This was peremptorily refused. Permission was denied to sell that part of the land. Then the college corporation, feeling that the Government would not fail to buy after such formal understanding, refused to sell the remainder of the farm at an ad-venced price, and took steps to stop work on the premises. They sold their herds of cows-which were considerable-their agricultural implements, and disposed of everything they used in the working of the farm, and expected to deliver the latter to the Department of Agriculture without delay, as had been understood with the deputy minister and the chief of Experimental Farm branch. Months passed, the college heard nothing further, the project came to naught, the department causing thereby to the corporation damages to the extent of several thousand dollars. As an excuse the department now says: "We would buy willingly enough, but the Minister of Finance will not let us have the requisite amount; there are, in the Cabinet, ministers who will not hear of the purchase of this experimental station." And the experimental station at L'Assomption is closed.
I have come to the conclusion, although this was not said in plain language, that the location was wrong, that if this experimental farm had been situated in another province, it would have suited the Government better. I do not want to insist too much upon this, but when we see the experimental farm grants increased, when we

are asked for more money for them, I ask myself why this curtailment in the province of Quebec, in the region which I have the honour to represent, certainly an important district, especially in the matter of tobacco growing; I ask myself why this experimental farm is done away with, which contributed to develop this industry among us to the point which it has reached to-day. Even a rented experimental station is dispensed with which was so useful to the tobacco planters, after the department having so obviously humbugged the L'As-somption College Corporation with the prospect of the purchase of their farm.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before this matter
goes further, I beg to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that this discussion would be absolutely in order under item No. 40, but it is not in order under item No. 14. If the committee will allow item No. 14 to carry, we can continue the discussion. Is there any objection to the passage of item No. 14?


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is this item?


Georges Henri Boivin: Item No. 40 is the item on experimental farms, about which the hon. member for L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Seguin) has been speaking.


Mr. COPP:: What item have we been
considering?


Georges Henri Boivin: Item No. 14.


William Stevens Fielding: Do you not think, Sir, under the item of salaries, the whole question of experimental farms comes up?


Georges Henri Boivin: Not the question of the establishment or the failure to establish at any particular point a particular experimental farm. The general question of experimental farms would, because the general question of experimental farms 5 p.m. is related to the number of employees required in the head office. But the establishment or closing of any one experimental farm would come very much more properly under the item by which money is provided for experimental farms.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: (Translation.) I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but if I deemed it advisable to touch upon the question of the tobacco illustration station situated at L'Assomption, it was because the hon. minister had just explained he was asking for much larger appropriations for salaries on account of the increase in the number of experimental farm officials all over the country.


Georges Henri Boivin: (Translation.) That may be germane to the question, but barely so.


Joseph Archambault: The minister
stated in answer to my question that no experimental farms had been closed. I pointed out that the experimental farm at L'Assomption had been closed. I was sure there were some employees there receiving salaries from the Government. We are now considering the question of salaries of employees on experimental farms as well as other employees of the Government, and it is perfectly in order to discuss the salaries of these men.


Georges Henri Boivin: We are not considering the salaries of employees on experimental farms throughout the country.


Joseph Archambault: Does the item not refer to salaries of all employees of the Department of Agriculture?


Georges Henri Boivin: The item which we are now considering refers to salaries paid to all employees of the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa.


George Green Foster: Civil Government is what we are discussing now.


William Stevens Fielding: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but may I suggest this for your reflection? I think in the English House of Commons it is not an uncommon thing to move a reduction of salaries and on that basis to discuss the whole department. I grant, however, it would be much more convenient if your ruling could be carried out.


Charles Murphy: Perhaps the discussion was brought about through a reference of the minister to an increase in the work of experimental farms. I am not questioning the ruling at all.


Georges Henri Boivin: It Was precisely on that feature that the discussion came up, and it was also for that reason that the Chairman did not interrupt the hon. member (Mr. Seguin). He merely drew the attention of the committee to the matter after the hon. member had concluded his remarks.


Charles Murphy: May I suggest to the
minister that he go over the increases item by item and explain to the committee the increases in the work or other necessities justifying the increase in the number of employees.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What item?


Charles Murphy: I would suggest beginning with the first item of that class, head clerks, increase three to four, principal clerks, increase four to six, and so on, each one in sequence.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That was due to a change in the classification. This man is a very efficient officer, one of the best we have in the department, one who is thoroughly versed in his work and one whom I have found, in my brief time in the office as minister, a very valuable man.


Joseph Archambault: I see by last
year's Estimate that there were only three head clerks, now there are four. I admit this clerk may be very intelligent, but he cannot double himself.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This man has been promoted,'and a position beneath him filled, making four instead of three.


Joseph Archambault: The work which was done last year by three man cannot be done now by three?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No, if we wish to obtain the efficiency we desire.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Has the minister before
him the names of these four head clerks with rather good-sized salaries?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No, but I shall be glad
to furnish them later.


Joseph Archambault: In what branch is this new head clerk?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In the deputy minister's office.


Samuel William Jacobs: I notice the salary of the deputy minister is fixed at $5,500. I understood that the salaries of other deputy ministers had been fixed at $6,000. Why is this deputy minister receiving $500 less than other deputies?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: He has a house allowance, which accounts for the difference.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does that house belong to the Government?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes, it is situated on the
Experimental Farm. The present deputy minister was Director of Experimental Farms, and resides there in the house he had before, and is always available for giving his valuable advice in the work of the farm.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would it not be better to fix the salary at $6,000 and charge him $500 rent?
TMr. Tolmie.]


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The deputy minister
seems to be quite satisfied with the present arrangement, and we have found no objection so far.


John Ewen Sinclair: I would be disposed to be very generous to the Department of Agriculture, because I do not think we have been spending enough money on that department as compared with other departments of the Government. I find by the Auditor General's Report that there has been an apparent extravagance in travelling expenses. The travelling expenses shown at page A-14 of the Auditor General'^ Report, referring to the headquarters' staff I presume, amount to the large sum of $55,276.70. I think the minister ought to give some explanation of that. In looking over the names, I find that in one case, at all events, the amount spent in travelling expenses exceeded the amount of the man's salary, and in other cases the travelling expenses are quite large. Why is it necessary to spend such a large sum as $55,276.70 in travelling expenses?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We have recognized that travelling expenses have become a very important item, particularly on account of the increased railway fares, the great increase in hotel bills these men have to pay, the increased rates on dining cars, and for hiring cars to take them from place to place about the country, and so forth. Several of our divisional officers have necessarily to do a lot of travelling in order to carry on their work. In the Health of Animals branch, for instance, the men have to travel from place to place. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, in connection with clearing up the mange, we had a large number of men travelling over an area of 2,600 miles. We have fruit inspectors moving from one part of the country to the other, and livestock promoters out in the field working up the live stock business, encouraging breeders to co-operate in their methods of marketing their stock to the very best advantage, and so forth. Then there are the Experimental Farm superintendents and the inspectors of Illustration Stations. All these men require a large amount for travelling expenses. It has become a very large item, and we have given a great deal of consideration to it, but until there is a general fall in prices, I do not see how we can reduce travelling expenses very soon.


Mr. MORPHY:: Instead of having men travelling from Ottawa to different parts

of the country, would it not be possible to have men located at different points throughout the country, who at the same time would be in constant touch with the authorities at Ottawa? Why could not that be done to save travelling expenses? I would think that men on the spot would understand the conditions better.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We have men on the spot now, but the "spots" are very big. For instance, a fruit inspector in British Columbia has to mave about among the other inspectors who are permanently located at different points. The chief inspector goes about exercising general supervision over their work. The same is true of the Health of Animals Branch. A man might be located at Ottawa, and there might be an outbreak of hog cholera 200 miles away. There is nobody closer to that point than himself, and so he has to travel that 200 miles and back again, and pay his hotel bill while he is engaged there. We are attempting to curtail travelling expenses as much as possible, so far as is consistent with rendering efficient service to the livestock and other agricultural interests.


John Ewen Sinclair: I do not think this item of
$55,276.70 covers the travelling expenses of the inspectors who are out in the field, because provision is made in different parts of the Estimates for that. I think this large item refers to the head office staff here in Ottawa.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We have a number of
heads of different branches located in the city of Ottawa, such as the Director of the Experimental Farms, the Veterinary Director General, the Assistant Veterinary General, the Livestock Commissioner, the Chief of the Fruit Markets Branch, and many others. We find that to keep these men up to date and thoroughly abreast of the work being carried on throughout the country, and so that the field inspectors may benefit by their better knowledge of the whole situation, it is necessary for the branch heads to visit the different parts of the country at least once during the year. We find that has a very stimulating effect on the work being carried on. The chief inspectors in the different provinces are very glad to see the man from headquarters. I speak with a good deal of feeling on that point, because I was Chief Inspector of the Health of Animals Branch and representative of the Livestock Commissioner in British Columbia for many jears. One or two years might elapse without my ever seeing anybody from 'headquarters, and I know how a person is inclined to drift from the ordinary lines under those circumstances. We find it very beneficial to have a headquarters man going around throughout the country to keep everything working uniformly.


Samuel William Jacobs: I notice that on page 89
provision is made for a Chief, Poultry Division ; Chief, Sheep and Goats Division; Chief, Cattle Division; Chief, Horse Division; but no provision is made for Chief, Swine Division. Not because I am personally interested, but for the good of the country, I would like to know what has become of the swine.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The swine are included
[DOT]with the sheep and goats.


Samuel William Jacobs: When the minister comes to separate the sheep from the goats, where will he find the swine?


Mr. MAHARG:: The minister has told
us that the deputy minister is occupying the house he occupied as Assistant Director of the Experimental Farm. Might I ask what housing provision has been made for the present Assistant Director?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The deputy minister
occupies the house he occupied as Director of the Experimental Farms, not Assistant Director. The present Director occupies the house he occupied as Assistant Director.


Joseph Archambault: There is no
assistant director?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There is an assistant director, Dr. Shutt, of the Experimental Farm system. He resides at the Central Farm in Ottawa.


John Archibald Maharg: Does the gentleman who took the place of the present deputy minister reside on the farm at present?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Would the officials of the department be entitled to lower transportation rates over Government roads?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We used to get a rate over different lines, at one time as low as a cent a mile. Later on it was increased somewhat. That concession has been discontinued entirely now.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I want to direct the attention of the minister to the present expensive cost of food on dining cars. I think this matter should be brought forcibly to the attention of the Minister of Railways. Members of the House, and

citizens generally who travel to any extent, will quite appreciate what the minister says in regard to the cost of meals on dining cars throughout the country. It might be possible for the Minister of Agriculture to take this matter up with the Minister of Railways. Something should be done, at any rate, because the dining car rates to-day are more exorbitant than they should be in view of the amount of food supplied the patrons of the different railways for the prices charged. The people feel strongly on this question, and I am glad that the minister has referred to it. It is one that could be dealt with very satisfactorily between the Minister of 'Agriculture and the Minister of Railways, and if something could be done to reduce the rates on dining cars, it would be highly appreciated.


Mr. EULER:: What disposition is made of the products of the Experimental Farms?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: They are sold, and the money is turned in to the Receiver General.


James Alexander Robb: Before we leave the question raised by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. McCoig), with regard to travelling expenses of officials, now that Canada owns such an immense mileage, are instructions given to Government officials as to what roads they should travel over when going from one part of the country to another where both roads run?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes, in our department they are instructed to use, as far as possible, Government roads, Government express, and Government telegraph service.


James Alexander Robb: Are those instructions carried out?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Wherever practicable,
but in some parts of the country it is impossible to avoid the use of the other roads.


Samuel William Jacobs: When they want to get from one place to another in time, what are they instructed to do?


Mr. DEVLIN:: I certainly do not rise to encourage any extravagance at this time;
I know that the country cannot afford to spend too much. But I see that a great deal is being expended in agricultural salaries one way and another, and I desire again to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that year in and year out, on the floor of the House, I have been asking his careful attention to the study of the agricultural condition in the

northern part of the county of Wright,-
I do not mean its extreme north, because it extends almost to the North Pole. The county is very large, and it afforded me much pleasure to be present last fall at an exhibition held in Maniwaki, which is about 98 miles from Ottawa. The exhibition was a great credit to the place. It brought numerous exhibitors together and demonstrated just what could be produced in the way of agricultural products as far north as anything could grow. They have put up a building there, in the construction of which I understand the Government has aided. I marvelled at the building they were able to erect for the sum of money which it actually cost. In another portion of the county, in the town of Aylwin, there is always a splendid exhibition, but, of course, it is the most populous part of the county. At that exhibition they show stock, poultry, and field products, and it has been of immense benefit it the people living in the lower end of the county. I have found that agricultural lectures serve a great purpose, and I have particularly requested an experimental station, or rather two. There could be a station at one end of the county, and another up north. It seems a lot to ask for, but it would result in incalculable good. I do not want to increase expenditures unnecessarily, for I believe in economy; but owing to the varied conditions in that county, to its altitude in certain parts, at least two experimental stations are necessary, one in the northern, and the other in the lower part of the county. I speak now for the county of Wright; not for that part of the county which, up to 1917, was included in Wright, and which is known to-day as the county of Hull.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I shall be glad to look into the matter carefully. Perhaps illustration stations would be more suitable than an experimental farm, because they could be located at a small expense, and would be useful in demonstrating to the farmers of the immediate vicinity under what conditions the best results in agriculture could be obtained.


Joseph Archambault: I do not want to repeat a question asked on a previous item, but will the minister please indicate in what branches there has been an increase in the number of employees? At page 90, for instance, we have head clerks, of whom there are four now as compared with three last year. The minister has .

given a reason for that increase. In the next item there are six instead of four, then eight instead of seven, twenty-one instead of sixteen, and so forth. Will the minister indicate in what branches there have been increases in the number of employees, and for what reasons?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In the first one there is one increase, a senior clerkship. That was in the Health of Animals Branch. The Health of Animals Branch has extended a good deal during the last year on account of the development of the Accredited Herd System, and the outbreaks of hog cholera this year have also been much more numerous, making it necessary to carry on a great deal more record work than in the past. The next increase of clerks has been in the Experimental Farm system, as well as in the Health of Animals Branch system. With reference to the latter branch the same answer that I gave before to the hon. member applies.


Joseph Archambault: Do I understand that it is at the Experimental Farm that the increase has occurred?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In the Health of Animals Branch, and also in connection with the Experimental Farm. The two together would account for the increase. Does the hon. member require any further information?


Joseph Archambault: I want the whole list.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The next item with respect to junior clerks is relative to the Health of Animals Branch. In the item dealing with senior accountant clerks the changes have been in the accountants branch of the Department of Agriculture. The item relating to senior clerk stenographer applies to the Health of Animals and Livestock Branches.


Joseph Archambault: I notice there is an increase of seventeen stenographers.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In the case of the clerk stenographers this applies to the Health of Animals Branch, the Livestock Branch, and the Seed Branch. The junior clerk stenographers that are referred to are in the Seed Branch, the Livestock Branch, and the Experimental Farm. The clerk typists referred to are in the Seed Branch, the Livestock Branch, and the Health of Animals Branch. The item referring to office appliance operators has to do with the Publications Branch.


Mr. CANNON:: Would the minister be kind enough to inform me who is in charge of the cattle which are distributed throughout the country by the Department of Agriculture. I would like the minister to state the name of the official, his salary, and where his headquarters are located?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The Live Stock Branch is under the supervision of Mr. H. S. Ar-kell, Livestock Commissioner, whose salary is $4,200 a year.


Lucien Cannon: Were any cattle distributed by the department last year? If so, in what localities did the distribution occur?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I will give the hon.
gentleman all the details. A large number of cattle have been distributed throughout the whole of Canada, because the system is a very popular one. I shall be very glad to state the places to which they have been sent but at present we are discussing an altogether different item.


Lucien Cannon: Upon whose recommendation is the distribution made?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The applications are
sent into the Livestock Branch by various clubs under certain conditions, and the applications are carefully looked into by the representatives of our branch. Mr. Hamer represents Mr. Arkell in this matter, and if the application made is in strict conformity with the regulation and the conditions are found to be satisfactory, a distribution is made. If such is not the case, the application is refused.


Lucien Cannon: When the animals are thus distributed are they given away by the department, or must they be returned after the expiration of a certain length of time?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: They are simply loaned.


Lucien Cannon: Can the minister tell me if the cattle which were distributed in my constituency in 1917 have been returned to the department?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: To what part of the
country does the hon. member allude?


Lucien Cannon: I am very much surprised that the minister should have to inquire the name of my constituency. Since the minister has taken charge of his department he has shown great efficiency, and has also displayed great devotion to the interests of the farming class in Canada. I would advise my hon. friend to be kind enough, after the recess, to come into my

constituency and then he will learn that it is one of the best farming constituencies in the province of Quebec. In that connection, and referring to the question which I just put to the minister, if my hon. friend does come to the county of Dorchester he will find there lots of cattle that belongs to his department. Those cattle were placed in my constituency by a very generous government during the election a few years ago.


Mr. BUTTS:: A bad recommendation for your county.


Lucien Cannon: It is a very bad recommendation for the Government, not for my county. The minister has inquired as to the name of my constituency. Now that I have told him, and also informed him where the constituency is situated, I hope he will show towards that county the same interest he has displayed towards the rest of Canada, and especially towards his own province of British Columbia.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: If time permits I will be very pleased indeed to accept the kind invitation of the hon. member for Dorchester to visit his constituency next year and look into its agricultural prospects. When I make that visit I sincerely hope I shall find the hon. member at home.


Lucien Cannon: I am always there.
Mr, TOLMIE: Since last session I have made every effort to visit as many parts of the Dominion as I possibly could. I have been in Quebec on several occasions, but I have not seen half enough of that province. I hope at the first opportunity to extend my visits to those parts of the country that I failed to reach on previous occasions. As regards the distribution of these bulls and other livestock, the distributions are made absolutely free of any political considerations. I have worked in this particular line myself in British Columbia, and in every instance we considered whether the group of men or club had fully complied with the regulations, and if we found they had not they got no animals, if they had met all the regulations, we gave them the best animals we could get for the money. We have 266 bulls at the present time in the province' of Quebec, distributed there by the Livestock Branch. I could not give details of their distribution at the moment, but I will be very pleased to furnish this information if my hon. friend wishes it.	,


Lucien Cannon: Have horses been distributed by the department?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Under the old system we used to distribute horses under the same conditions as we distribute cattle, sheep, and swine, but that system has been changed.


Lucien Cannon: When was it changed?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think about three years ago.	.


Lucien Cannon: Were any complaints received by the department from the district of lake St. John as to the distribution of horses there by the department?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Not that I know of. It was before my time.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Might I inquire what item is before the committee? I am sorry I was not in the House when these Estimates were taken up.


Georges Henri Boivin: The item before the committee is No. 14 on pag 8 of the Estimates, but the explanation of that item is to be found on pages 89, 90 and 91.


Donald Sutherland: Then I assume that the matter that has been under discussion is not pertinent to the item before the committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: The discussion on
the distribution of livestock would be more in order under item 49, where a special amount is provided for livestock.


Donald Sutherland: I presume that
this item applies to the inspectors of livestock throughout the country who are on the permanent staff. Are these inspectors, who I believe are graduates of the veterinary school, appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The inspectors in the
Livestock branch and the Health of Animals branch are appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


Donald Sutherland: This item of
$541,955 is very large, and in connection with it I want to say a word or two about some of the inspectors of livestock. It is quite evident that a considerable change comes over some people when they get permanently in the service-they become very autocratic and domineering. I have in my constituency a man who considers that he has been very badly used not only by the inspectors but also by the Department of Agriculture itself. This man raises hogs. An inspector from the department examined the hogs and said they were diseased and that he would come around in a day or

two and destroy the whole herd. My constituent denied that there was any disease in his herd, that on the contrary he had not lost a hog for two years, and that if any cholera existed among them surely there would be some evidence of it through the hogs dying, because the disease works very rapidly as a rule. A number of the animals were fit for market and the owner asked to have the privilege of dressing the carcases and disposing of them if the animals were going to be destroyed, The inspector gave him the privilege of dressing all he could in one day. Thirty-three of the best finished hogs were dressed and hung up for the inspector's examination. He examined the intestines and did not find any disease, and the carcases were disposed of for food. But the inspector destroyed every other animal-there were 245 in the herd-and refused to give the owner any compensation. Now, we have been passing legislation in regard to compensation, but I do not think there is anything in the statutes covering such a case as I have represented. It is true that certain authority is given to the department to make regulations, and I am informed that it is under those regulations that this action was taken. I am merely calling the attention of the minister to the very peculiar manner in which some of the inspectors in his department acted in this particular instance. All the aggrieved party asks is that a commission be appointed to investigate the matter, and he will abide by their decision. But the department will not consider the suggestion. I even had the temerity to write a letter to the Veterinary Director General, and I am told that one of these understrappers in the department made the remark, that Mr. Sutherland had better attend to his own business and they would attend to theirs. Now, if that is correct, and they are the class of men that we are voting salaries to to-day, I think we should know something more about them before we pass this item of over half a million dollars, particularly in view of the statement made by the head of the Civil Service Commission yesterday, and published in the press this morning, in which he practically dictates to the members of this House what they shall do, and imputes motives to them that no employee should be permitted to impute and remain in the service of the Government.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Mr. Chairman-


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the minister
should have an opportunity of replying to the question.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In reply to what the
hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has said, it must be borne in mind that hog cholera is not a disease which shows itself very clearly in all cases. Where the disease is very acute the animal dies within a few hours and the symptoms are clearly defined; but should the animal be suffering from chronic cholera there would be no external symtoms and to the eye of the layman the hog would be apparently healthy. So far as our Health of Animals branch is concerned, I want to say that it is the most efficient, not merely on this continent, but in the whole world. Our men are all graduates of recognized veterinary colleges and in addition have passed a stiff Civil Service examination as well as an examination under the Health of Animals branch, with a view to ensuring their qualification for the important work they have to undertake. Having myself been one of these men, I know the ups and downs of the business very well. In many cases where a man's animals have been destroyed he sees that there is a loss of money and he is very much hurt. He cannot, perhaps, trace the source of infection; he cannot understand why the animals should be sick, and in some cases it is very difficult to please him. But I am quite sure that the reports of these inspectors could be depended upon if they made a diagnosis and found hog cholera, because my deputy minister has mentioned some of their names and I find that among them are one or two of the best we have in the Health of Animals service. , I shall be very glad, as long as I have the honour to preside over this department, to receive complaints from anybody regarding any of our officials who are not courteous or who do not carry out their duties in the proper way. If any such cases are brought to my attention, I promise to make very careful investigation of the circumstances. The member for South Oxford has already mentioned this particular case to me. I have sent for a report, but it has not yet come to hand; I expect it at an early day.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like to say
just a word in regard to this matter of appointment of officials. If I could not make any better appointments than some that are made by the Civil Service Commission I would consider myself absolutely incompetent to give an expression of opinion upon

anything. In regard to these inspectors, I do not know how many there are in connection with the Health of Animals branch, but it would appear to me that the staff cannot be a very large one, or else they take things very leisurely. There was an outbreak of glanders in the northern part of my county last year, and on the 14th of October inspectors came out to that district, quarantined three or four farms, shot half a dozen animals or more, and gave strict instructions as to the carrying out of certain regulations, telling the farmers that they might not under any circumstances allow a horse to come on their farms until the Government lifted the quarantine. They also informed the farmers that they would be back in thirty days to make a further inspection and that they would then inform the farmers whether or not they could be freed from the quarantine regulations. The 14th of November came around, but no inspector appeared; the 14th of December passed, and still no inspector. These farmers wrote me in regard to the matter. I called up the department by telephone, and apparently it was only then that they remembered that there was a place out in the north of Frontenac which had been visited by their inspectors and in which some animals had been shot and a quarantine established. Indeed, it was only after they had been reminded of the matter several times over the telephone that they got busy and did anything; it was not until well on in January that the quarantine was lifted. What I complain of, and what these farmers complain of, is this: if there are not enough of these inspectors to attend to the business at the proper time, then more should be appointed. When these inspectors said they would return in thirty days, they should have returned in thirty days. As it was, the farmers could not prepare their ground for the next year's crop; they could not even get out their potatoes or anything of that kind, and on the whole they were left in a very bad position as regards their crop for this year. I think that was absolutely unnecessary; it would not have occurred had these inspectors cared, as I submit they should have cared, about the way in which they performed their duties. The trouble with a lot of people in the Civil Service to-day-and we have repeated instances of it-there is no use shutting our eyes to the fact-is that they feel that they are absolutely independent of this Parliament and they do not give a hang what we say or what we think. They hold their 
meetings; they say through the head of their commission and others the most impertinent things. They impute to members of this House motives that they have no right to impute to them, as did, according to the papers, the chairman of the commission the other day. What right has Hon. Dr. Roche, even though he was a member of this House and a member of the Government at one time-what right has he to say that because I choose to take a view in regard to this matter which differs from his view, I am actuated by a motive to hold the whip hand over people in my county? I resent any such attitude or any such words on the part of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. If the gentleman had not occupied a seat in this House and a seat in the Government at one time I do not think he would have felt that he could go quite as far as he has gone in expressing opinions derogatory to members of this House. With any person not so high up in the scale as the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission we would have no hesitation at all in characterizing such words as absolute impertinence, and even though he does occupy the position of Chairman of the Civil Service Commission I want to say here and now that I so regard the words which he made use of in speaking in the city of Ottawa, if he is correctly reported in the papers of yesterday and to-day.
Something is wrong in regard to this Health of Animals Branch. These men should have returned when they said they would. It seems to me that they were indifferent; that is the only way that I can look at it-they were indifferent as to what the effect would be upon these farmers in my county. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Agriculture, as I will to the minister of any other department of this or any government while I hold a seat in this House, that no department or government in Canada will show indifference to any of the people of the county I represent and get away with it.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Perhaps a word of explanation, Mr. Chairman, will throw a little light on the subject. I am very sorry indeed if the farmers of any part of Frontenac have been inconvenienced in any way owing to the fact that inspectors could not reach their premises and release them from quarantine just when they promised to. But there are extenuating circum-

stances, I think. For instance, in undertaking the accredited herd work throughout the whole of Canada we were astounded how popular the work was with the farmers; a great many more went into it than we had anticipated. In addition, the big work was on in Alberta in connection with the elimination of mange, and we had an extra number of hog cholera outbreaks last year, so that there was an extreme shortage of qualified veterinary inspectors. To give you an idea, Mr. Chairman, as to what changes have taken place in the veterinary profession as a result of the fall in the price of horses, let me say that there graduated from the Ontario Veterinary College last year, the largest college of the kind in Canada, only twenty-five men or thereabouts, whereas in 1891 I remember quite distinctly that 225 men graduated from that institution. The field of operations for the veterinary is not so large as it used [DOT] to be. Consequently, many of our young men, with the high prices prevailing and the good opportunities offering in other lines, have not taken up veterinary work, and we have a good deal of difficulty in securing qualified veterinary surgeons to carry on the work of the health of animals branch. In this connection we are not entirely alone because, while we are, I think, one or two hundred herds behind in the way of applications, in the United States, with their accredited herd system, they are many thousands of herds behind in their applications. Their work thus shows that there is a shortage there also. I am sorry to hear that these men were inconvenienced, and I will use my best efforts to see that that sort of thing does not occur again.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Last year I succeeded in obtaining for certain farmers in my constituency certain books called "Farmers' Account Books." Some were in English, and I had to apply to the Commission of Conservation to have them translated into French. I succeeded in having that done, but I am told that now the Commission of Conservation is going to be abolished. Will the minister tell us to whom we shall now have to apply to obtain these books, which are very valuable to farmers especially in view of the fact that they have to make income tax returns like anybody else.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I cannot give the hon. member exact information now, but that is a matter that will be taken up in the
event of the Commission of Conservation being eliminated.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Will those books be in French?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We will do what is right. At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS SECOND READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24 (from the Senate) for the relief of Frank Alexander Staunton.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 29, respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Kennedy (Essex).
Bill No. 30, respecting The Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company. -Mr. Devlin.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committtee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When the House rose at six o'clock we were considering the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture. We had reached and quite fully discussed item No. 14 on page 8 of the Estimates, the details of which are to be found on pages 89, 90, and 91 of the Estimates for the current year. Shall item No. 14 carry?


John Ewen Sinclair: With reference to the footnote on page 9, would the minister inform the committee what part of the salaries are carried under the War Appropriation and Demobilization votes?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: These contingencies are for clerical and other assistance, printing and stationery, sundries and travelling expenses. The details will be found on page 91.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend wants to know what part of these salaries comes under War Appropriations and Demobilization.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: None of it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then what do the asterisk and footnote mean?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There is still some correspondence in connection with the Food Board that is being carried on by Mr. Stephens, the principal clerk to the deputy minister. He received no extra salary for that work.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think the minister yet understands my hon. friend's question. Opposite the item of salaries for the Department of Agriculture there is an asterisk, which is explained by the footnote on page 9, "These votes include salaries and contingencies carried under the War Appropriations and Demobilization votes." If that is correct a certain part of the item for salaries comes under the War Appropriations and Demobilization votes, and we want to know just how much.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The only work that would come under that is the answering of correspondence in connection with the Food Board, for which no extra salary is given to the principal clerk who does that work.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then why is this reference made to the footnote?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I presume a portion of his salary is attributed to that. He spends from one to three hours a week in connection with the work of the Food Board.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How much would it be in dollars and cents?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Probably from $30 to $50 a year, roughly speaking.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That comes out of this vote?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Is that extra salary?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No.


Donald Sutherland: How much of the whole, appropriation for civil government is to be expended in connection with the Dominion experimental farms?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I could not give that as a total, but I could give it item by item, which would take some time.


Donald Sutherland: Can the minister say what proportion will be expended in connection with experimental farms in the province of Ontario? My reason for trying to get this information is that I made quite an effort last session to get it, and I was told that the per capita expenditure for the province of Ontario was greater than that of any other province in Canada. My observations would lead me to the conclusion that the province of Ontario was doing this work itself and paying for it, as well as contributing to the expenses of the other provinces. In answer to a question I placed on the Order Paper last year as to what was the amount paid in salaries at the Central Experimental Farm under the head of Civil Government for the year

1918-19, the total given was $93,295.95. There is a very large expenditure on this farm that has evidently been charged against the province of Ontario, although it is well known that the work of the farm is not confined to Ontario, but is carried on for the benefit of the whole Dominion. The farm is the centre of the whole system in operation throughout the Dominion, and I for one must refuse to have the total expenditure for this central farm charged up against the province of Ontario, and to be told that the per capita expenditure is greater for Ontario than for any other province. I have for years strenuously objected to the manner in which Ontario was being discriminated against in the matter of experimental farms.


Pius Michaud: How many experimental farms have you in Ontario?


Donald Sutherland: There is a small tobacco farm at Harrow, about 487 miles from the central farm at Ottawa. There is another farm at Kapuskasing, 542 miles to the northwest of Ottawa, in the bush in northern Ontario. So far as I know, those are all that are being carried on in the province, with the exception of. the central farm, the work of which is, in my opinion, more beneficial to some of the other provinces than it is to Ontario. We were told this afternoon that even a part of the salary of the deputy minister is charged up against the expenses of this farm. The salary of the deputy minister, I understand, is more than that of others in view of certain perquisites which he has in con-* nection with the farm. Before this item passes, I think we ought to know exactly whether the expenditure for the experimental farms, particularly under the head of Civil Government, is anything like equal throughout the Dominion:	My own view
is that it is not. Ontario has been continually discriminated against in this matter, although it is doing the work and payng for it besides contributing to the expenses of the other provinces.


Mr. WHITE (Victoria, Alta.) :: Does the hon. member think that the experiments conducted by the farm here would benefit the other provinces, particularly in the West, where climatic conditions are different, to the same extent as they would the province of Ontario? I think that these expenditures should be charged against this province. The experiments conducted at this farm would be of no particular benefit to us, because our climatic conditions are different.


Donald Sutherland: The headquarters
of the whole system of farms are situated here; the officers are here all the time, and the work is beneficial to Western as well as Eastern Canada. The work on the farm here serves the adjoining province of Quebec much more than it does the province of Ontario.


Richard Smeaton White: I was not speaking of Quebec but of the western provinces.


Donald Sutherland: I was speaking of both Western Canada and Quebec. I was informing the hon. gentleman that this was the headquarters for the whole system, operating in Western Canada as well as in other parts of the Dominion, and he says that this ought to be charged up against Ontario because the work is of no benefit to Western Canada.


Richard Smeaton White: The experiments conducted here are of no use to Western Canada. At all events, it is obvious that they are more beneficial to Ontario than to a province where conditions are different.


Donald Sutherland: The item under discussion is Civil Government expenditures; it is not a matter of experimental farms at all.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: About three-quarters of it would come under the head of Civil Government. The whole staff of the experimental farms comes under the head of Civil Government. I regret that we cannot give the total. I could give it item by item, but that would take a good deal of time. In connection with the Central Farm, we have appropriated $396,858.50; in connection with Kapuskasing, in northern Ontario, $35,405; and in connection with the Harrow tobacco farm, $6,231. The experiments conducted at the Central Farm are beneficial to many other provinces. A good deal of general work is done, such as experiments in connection with new plants-as, for instance, varieties of wheat, such as Marquis and Ruby wheat, different kinds of oats, and one or two varieties of barley-and while this is beneficial to Ontario, it is also useful to the whole of Canada. Take, for instance, the sunflower experiments this year. We have produced from twenty-seven to thirty-two tons of sunflower to the acre, and put it into the silo at $2.70 per ton. That is something of the greatest benefit to the people of the whole country; it is useful to farmers all over the country who are
interested in these special lines of experiment. It must be remembered, however, that the mere fact that the farm is located here is of immense benefit to the province of Ontario, because it is easily accessible to the farmers of that province who can take the train, or in summer, come down in their motor cars and see the work being done, thus benefiting directly.


John Archibald Maharg: What are the qualifications and responsibilities of those designated head clerks?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: These are men who
assume a certain amount of responsible work in their various departments. They carry on important correspondence and also investigation, to some extent, and they usually have three or four clerks under them. In a limited way they are supervisors.	*


John Archibald Maharg: I asked vvhat their
qualifications were.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: They have to pass a
Civil Service examination, and a good many of them are university men.


John Archibald Maharg: I asked this question because I see that the salaries paid run up to $3,200. On page 89 the salary of the superintendent of the farm is, however, only $2,340. Does the minister think that these salaries bear any proper relation to the qualifications and the responsibilities of the respective officers?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What particular officer does the hon. gentleman refer to?


John Archibald Maharg: I was saying that the salary of the superintendent of the farm is only $2,340, whereas the salaries of the head clerks go as high as $3,200. What relation is there between those salaries and the responsibilities of the men engaged in the different classes mentioned?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The superintendent of
the farm is, of course, immediately under the director. The clerk the hon. member speaks of is a man who, as I say, assumes a certain amount of the responsibilities of the office. It is very difficult to state exactly whether one is more valuable than the other. If that farm superintendent were left to his own resources I should imagine his responsibilities would be very much greater; but I think we all now realize pretty well that these matters are fixed by the Civil Service Commission. There are, perhaps, a good many things done of which we do not approve but we cannot help it.


John Archibald Maharg: We have had considerable discussion about the Civil Service Commission, and the only way in which we can determine the value of the work that it is doing is by making inquiries of this kind. Personally I cannot see any relation between the qualifications required from, and the responsibilities incurred by, a man who has charge of an experimental farm and a clerk in an office. It seems to me that the salaries paid in this case are not relatively proportionate to the responsibilities incurred.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I may say that the salary of the superintendent of the farm will finally go up to $3,000. He also has a free house, which is heated for him, and that is an added advantage.


Mr. DUFF:: I notice there is a gentleman who separates the sheep from the goats. He is paid $3,000, whilst the superintendent of the farm only receives $2,300. Why is there that much difference?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: These salaries are all
fixed by the Civil Service Commission. The man who "separates the sheep from the goats," to quote my hon. friend's words, does work throughout the Dominion. He has to be familiar with local conditions in various parts of the country, and a great deal more general knowledge is demanded of him than of another man who may be an expert in a particular department.


William Duff: Has he been successful in
separating the sheep from the goats?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have not heard of any
quarrels among them yet.


Mr. GOULD:: I would like to know the reason for the increase of $8,000 in the Entomological branch? My reason for asking the question is that for years in the West grain growers have been suffering from certain insect pests. One is the saw-fly which attacks our wheat; in fact the ravages of this pest have 'reached such a stage that some growers have about decided to forego the growing of Marquis wheat in my area. The ravages of the sawfly are largely responsible for this determination among the farmers. Then the grasshopper pest has worked havoc for the past three years in a large area out there. I was wondering whether this $8,000 additional was to be applied to the solution of the problem of combatting evils such as those I have alluded to. I believe that in certain parts of my constituency no less a sum than $10,000,000 has been lost in the last

three years owing to the depredations of these insects; and we have been very much interested in learning whether the Dominion and provincial governments would not endeavour to provide some remedy that would successfully combat the attacks of insect pests. I would like to have an expression of opinion on the subject from the minister.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The crusade against
grasshoppers in Western Canada is carried on under the provisions of the Destructive Insect Pests Act, and the vote for that purpose will be found in the Estimates. I may say that we have been in the past few years co-operating with the provincial departments of agriculture in the carrying out of measures for the eradication of these pests, and I think that last year very satisfactory work was done. We have a number of experts who devote their whole time to that work out in the West. We have one in particular who accompanies a moving demonstration train throughout the western country giving lectures, and atfording other information, in connection with the measures for dealing with these pests. Last summer, with the co-operation of our men the provincial governments were able to substitute sawdust, and other things, for bran in connection with the poisoning of grasshoppers. They also conducted experiments with poison gas and found that putting poison in bran and other materials was far more satisfactory than the use of gas promised to be. We ate still continuing that work. I would like to extend the scope of the work of the department a good deal because I think there are a good many opportunities to do so, but of course we cannot carry out all our wishes having in view the financial situation in Canada. We therefore have to work with the brakes on, so to speak, in connection with this matter.


Mr. CRERAR:: I notice, Mr. Chairman,
a considerable increase in the number of the employees under the item we are considering. Under the vote for Civil Government in connection with the Department of Agriculture, 318 employees were last year provided for. This year the Minister is seeking to make provision for 359, an increase of 41. Now I quite recognize the very great importance of the Department of Agriculture to the welfare of the Dominion; but at the same time consideration should be given to the financial position of the country and the fact recognized that it is time to exercise economy. We should therefore keep our expenditures, if possible, within the limits of what they were last year. I

was just wondering if it would not be possible for my good friend who presides over the Department of Agriculture to get along with the same number of employees that he had a year ago, and thus reduce the expenditure under this particular heading by anywhere from fifty to sixty thousand dollars.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I fully realize the financial condition of the country, and on any occasion when I find myself inclined to be a little neglectful of the fact in my enthusiasm for further expansion, I am promptly reminded of it by my colleague the Minister of Finance. With respect to the particular items to which the hon. member has referred, I may say that I explained them all in detail shortly before six o'clock. If my hon. friend reads to-morrow's Hansard he will there find all the details of our work as it is carried on throughout the country. We have been as economical as possible, but we feel that these increases are absolutely necessary if we are going to maintain the progress of agriculture in Canada.


Donald Sutherland: I would like to
say a word or two before we get away from the subject of the experimental farms. Some hon. gentleman opposite drew the minister's attention, away from this particular matter, but I would like to institute a comparison between the two old Provinces of Ontario and Quebec where the conditions are very similar. At one time the Central Experimental farm served both these provinces, and there was no other Government experimental farm in existence, At the present time, however, I notice that in the province of Quebec there are five central farms and fourteen sub-stations. Four of these farms are very much closer to the Central Farm than are the two farms located in the province of Ontario. I have noticed the expenditure for labour on these farms and I presume that the votes for a good many of these men come under the head of civil government, for the men are permanent and are employed from year to year. I also notice that for the two farms in Ontario the expenditure was $17,521, whereas the expenditure for the same purpose in the province of Quebec was $65,869. This does not include the $93,000 paid out in connection with the administration of the Central Farm at Ottawa some of which I presume will be charged up against the province of Ontario. There is a large item in the Estimates for travelling expenses incurred by officers employed on this farm. I am not finding fault with the number of 595
the men, or the work they are doing but I have contended in the past-and I still contend-that Ontario is being very unfairly dealt with in this regard. We contribute about one-half of the revenue of this country, and we are either paying for or doing ourselves the work that the other provinces are having done for them by the Dominion. If the Government is going to continue in that course we should, I think, consider whether it would not be better to hand this work over to the different provinces and let them conduct their own affairs. Then we should have an equitable distribution in connection with this matter.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I may explain that none of these farms were located in the province of Quebec during my term of office, and the moneys to which the hon. gentleman refers as moneys paid out for the carrying on of the various farms do not come under the civil government vote and consequently not under the item which we are discussing at the present time.


Mr. GLASS:: I would like to ask the
minister if the department is taking steps -to rebuild the experimental flax mill which was destroyed by fire some time ago. So far as I can see there is no item in the Estimates providing for a continuance of that experimental work. I would like to know what the "attitude of the department is towards this industry.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We are having plans
prepared for a new flax mill to replace the mill that was destroyed. We have a certain amount of money in these Estimates which might be used towards re-building, and if it is decided to go ahead with the new mill we may have to get more money in the Supplementary Estimates to complete the work. I fully realize the importance of the flax industry and its possibilities, and I can assure the hon. member that I shall be very glad to render every asistance possible to its development.


Donald Sutherland: Do I understand that the item under discussion does not cover the branch experimental farms at Kapuskasing, Harrow, Cap Rouge, Lennox-ville, Ste. Anne, and Farnham?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No.


John Archibald Maharg: While on the question of salaries, I think it has been recognized for years that officials in the Department of Agriculture are very much underpaid in comparison with officials in other departments. I am not going into the ques-

tion to-night, but I want to make one comparison. I notice that in some of the other departments a filing clerk receives a higher salary than professors in the different branches of the Department of Agriculture, such as assistant chemists, field husbandry men, and other technical men who have to spend years to qualify for their positions. I think there must be something radically wrong when a filing clerk is paid $100 more a year than the men I have described, and I would draw the minister's attention to the situation. I shall be willing to give him my support in any efforts he may make to place the salaries of these technical men on as attractive a basis as that obtaining in the other departments of the Government service. Perhaps the minister would like to voice his opinion on that point?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think good men are
always worthy of their hire, and undoubtedly we have in the Department of Agriculture many men who are rendering very valuable service to this country-service which could never be put in dollars and cents. Dr. Saunders, who created Marquis wheat, made a very valuable contribution to the country at a time when an improvement in our wheat was very badly needed, and I am sorry that there is no way of recognizing his ability. I think that, generally speaking, the hon. gentleman is correct and that the merit of our technical men in the Department of Agriculture has not been recognized as fully as it has been in other departments of the Government. So far as I am concerned, I shall always be glad to do all I can to the end that these men may be paid as liberally as possible. We must make their positions attractive if we expect to retain good men. By underpaying them we are simply making the department a training school for the benefit of other governments; we find our best men are taken by the provincial governments and by the gov-eminent of the United States after we have trained them for three or four years.


Pius Michaud: Is every man employed at the experimental farms classified under the Civil Service Commission?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: They are all classified except the labourers.


Mr. MYERS:: Is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture to expend any money during 1921 in experimenting on the treatment of flax fibre in the West.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It is the intention of the department to expend money on the experimental farms in the Prairie Provinces in connection with the development of the flax industry.


Georges Parent: What are the average hours that men employed on the experimental farms are expected to work?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The average is about
nine hours in winter and ten in summer.


Georges Parent: I am informed that
men employed on the experimental farms are sometimes obliged to work from twelve to fourteen hours per day without extra remuneration. I would like to know the policy of the Government in respect to these men.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Men like herdsmen and teamsters and others engaged in various lines of work where it is necessary for them to give attention to animals after their regular working hours are paid salaries, and they work on an average about eleven hours a day, but those are exceptions.


Georges Parent: I think the minister
ought to be in a position to give this committee his definite views so far as the employees of the experimental farms are concerned in regard to how much they are paid for a ten-hour day, and how much they are entitled to if they work extra hours.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Day labourers work by the day and in Eastern Canada are paid about thirty to thirty-five cents an hour. If they work overtime they are paid at the same rate. In Western Canada they are paid from forty to forty-one cents an hour.


Georges Parent: What is the policy of the Government in regard to these men, and how much are they paid when they work extra hours? I do not refer particularly to those engaged on the experimental farms in the province of Quebec, I am referring to those engaged on all the Government farms.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The rates as I have
stated them; they are not the same all over the country. If the men work an extra hour they are paid at the same rate.


Lucien Cannon: I notice that in this
item a special sum is allotted to the library. Where is that library, what books are in it, and to whom are the books distributed?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The library is located in the West Block. It contains a large number of books dealing with agriculture. Books and publications are also kept there which are received in connection with the International Bureau of Agriculture, with headquarters in Rome, to the meetings of which we send a delegate every year. _We secure from that source very valuable information concerning crop production all over the world, the production of animals, and so on, and we are able to keep in close touch with market conditions and, in general, prospects for the future in agriculture. Improved methods in agriculture are also noted and those that we think suitable to our needs and conditions are tried out on our experimental farms.


Lucien Cannon: I am well satisfied with the answer given by the minister. Are these books published in both languages ?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Some of them are.
Some, too, are published in more than two languages.


Lucien Cannon: Are the books distributed throughout the country, and if so, to whom?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: They are for the use of
the Agriculture Department. Of course, any reliable person can communicate with the department and take out one of these books for a time and subsequently return it.


Mr. McMASTER:: I notice a strange
anomaly on page 90: "1 translator, $1,500; 1 junior translator, $1,550." Apparently it is best to be a junior if you are in the translating business.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That is fixed by the
Civil Service Commission. It can be explained by length of service in the department.


Andrew Ross McMaster: To try to palm this
off on the Civil Service Commission does not seem to be satisfactory. " Junior translator " connotes, to my mind, the idea that he is junior in the service to the translator, yet he gets $50 more. There must be some explanation of this, or some mistake has been made which should be corrected.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There are a great many
anomalies in the Civil Service re-classification. Under the old classification this junior translator was entitled to run up to $1,560. According to the ruling of the
commission, employees could not be paid less than they were receiving before. This translator has come in under the new classification.


Mr. VIEN:: What is the name of the translator and what is the name of the junior translator?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I regret I cannot give
the names just now, but I shall be glad to get them for the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Vien: How long have they been in the service and what are the reasons given by the Civil Service Commission for the salaries assigned to each?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The junior translator
has been in the service about six years, and the translator about two years. I cannot personally account for any action of the Civil Service Commission.


Thomas Vien: Is the minister positive
that the Civil Service Commission is accountable for the fixing of this salary?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes, as far as my information goes.	[DOT]


Thomas Vien: But we want to know whether or not the minister is prepared to state definitely that the Civil Service Commission is responsible for fixing the salary of this translator at $1,500 and of the junior translator at $1,550.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The Act is responsible
for the $1,550, and the Civil Service Commission is responsible for the other one.


Lucien Cannon: I note that there is
provision for two junior zoologists at $1,295. I do not see any senior zoologist in the list. Why should there be two juniors and no senior?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There are no senior zoologists, and these two employees do not work in the same office. Both are women.


Georges Parent: Will the minister inform me whether the men employed at the experimental farms are entitled to a holiday of fifteen days or so each year without reduction of salary, even if they are absent one or more working days throughout the year?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Those who work by the
hour lose their time if they remain off. Those who work on salary are entitled to the usual holiday period. If a man misses a day through sickness or something of that kind, it is not deducted from his holiday.


Georges Parent: Do I understand then,
that if a man employed at the experimental farms is absent, say, ten days, and later, at different times, absent another five days, he will still get his fifteen days' holiday without suffering any reduction of salary?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In all those cases he must get permission from the Civil Service Commission before he is permitted to take those days.


Georges Parent: Not at all. The minister is not serious there.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not know whether we should blame the minister for the further anomalies I purpose setting forth before the committee, or whether the Civil Service Commission is to blame but I would draw this to the attention of the minister, as it seems to constitute a grave injustice. A senior file clerk gets $1,525; one file clerk gets $1,600, or more than the senior; a junior file clerk gets $1,250, and junior file clerks are paid more than a great number of stenographers. I should imagine that the work of a filing clerk was purely mechanical, requiring only carefulness and industry, while to be a good typist one has to have a very substantial degree of education. Perhaps the minister is not to blame for this, but certainly it does not reflect great credit on whoever is responsible for drawing up these grades in the service.
Mr. TOLMIE The same explanation that I gave a short time ago under the same conditions apply to that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is that the Civil Service Commission is responsible, but that is really no explanation to the committee for these very startling anomalies. The higher grades of service are being paid on a lower scale of remuneration than the lower grades. That is not fair.


Georges Parent: I should not like the minister to go on record as saying that employees on experimental farms are entitled to a holiday whenever the Civil Service Commission declares them to be entitled to one. I do not think the minister meant what he said a minute ago, and I should like him to give an answer again so that the committee will know exactly his position in the matter.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What I said is that they should get the authority of the Civil Service Commission before they could get a holiday. Those working by the hour are
not entitled to holidays with pay; they lose their pay if they take a holiday. Those on salary are entitled to the regulation holidays given to any other members of the Civil Service."


Georges Parent: That is not the point I am aiming at. I should like the minister to state whether, if a man happens to take only five days at one time and then takes one day after another, he is entitled to fifteen days altogether without having his salary reduced.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: As I understand the matter from the Civil Service Commission, it is not necessary for him to ask for the whole fifteen days if he wants five days, he can get them. If he is sick, he can get sick leave. The hon. member will find the provision in the regulations of the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister, in giving or attempting to give explanations regarding the items of the Estimate we have before us, has exposed the weakness of the Civil Service Commission. He blames, and, I think, rightly so, all these anomalies that the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter) speaks of, on the Civil Service Commission but in spite of the time spent by Arthur Young and Company, Griffenhagen and Company and the Civil Service Commission, there is still in the department of the minister, one poor unfortunate who has failed to be classified at all. Surely the minister will be able to tell us something about this person, what he does and what his salary is.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What item is the hon. gentleman referring to?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The last item on page 91 a civil servant not classified at all, with a salary of $1,600. What does he do?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I can get that information for the hon. gentleman in a few minutes.


Georges Parent: With a view to pointing out to the minister that I am not talking simply for the purpose of embarrassing him, because I do not believe I could, I will give him a concrete case which is reported to me and which is a justification for my interfering at this particular point of the discussion on the Estimates. I am told that at some experimental farms, employees are working ten hours and sometimes twelve or more hours a day, and they deserve a good deal of credit for the

time they spend on these farms in the interest of the people at large. When the time comes to take a holiday and they ask permission from the superintendent of their farm, he will say to them: "You may have this day, but it will be deducted from your salary." Therefore, these people complain that they have no opportunity to have a holiday outside of the ordinary holidays of fifteen days in the year. While some of them may take their fifteen days at one time; others would rather take ten days and then keep five or six days during the year for other purposes, taking a holiday whenever they want it. If it happens that they do not take their fifteen days at one time, but keep a few days 9 p.m. for their own pleasure or purpose afterwards, when they take such a day, a day's pay is deducted from their salary. Whatever there is in the complaint, all I can say is that I have received it, and these people say that a strong injustice is being done to them by their salaries being reduced for a day's holiday although they spend so many hours working for the country. That is why I am asking the minister to state whether, if a man is entitled to fifteen days' holiday in the year, if he takes these fifteen days at one time or a day now and then, he is entitled to full pay and not to have his salary reduced because he takes a day or two now and then.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: As I pointed out before, there is no objection to these men obtaining their holidays from time to time as may suit their convenience, but on every occasion, they must receive authority for doing so. If they use up their fifteen days in that way, their pay is not reduced.


Georges Parent: That is just the point I wanted the minister to come to. There is, for instance, employed on an experimental farm at Charlottetown, a man who has a brother dying, for instance, in Quebec, and he has to leave at once. According to the view that the department is taking now, this man has to write to Ottawa in order to receive authority for one or two days' holiday. That is what happens, that has happened, and the minister should see that a situation like that is not tolerated any longer.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That is not exactly the "case. In an emergency of that kind, he has no trouble. He does not even have as much trouble as other people have under similar circumstances. He gets permission
from the superintendent and is allowed to go at once.


William Daum Euler: In the various classifications of stenographers, clerks and so on, are men and women doing the same class of work?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Is any distinction made as regards salaries?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No distinction for similar positions.


Lucien Cannon: Referring to translators,
I notice that the senior translator of the department secured this year an increase of $120. The translator is not classified as either senior or junior, but is simply put down as translator. He gets an increase of $60, while the junior translator gets an increase of $100. I should like to ask the minister, who fixes the amounts of these various increases, and what is the reason for making these distinctions between people who are apparently doing the same class of work. Why should the junior translator get a bigger increase than the translator?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The junior translator is
under the old classification and his salary is practically fixed by the Act. It could not be reduced to a lesser amount than he was receiving, and it goes on increasing at the old rate. The increases under the new classification, under which the others come, are fixed by the Civil Service Commission.


Lucien Cannon: Am I to understand the minister to mean that the Civil Service Commission has the right to fix the wages that shall be received by the civil servants in the employ of the Government, without the head of the department having anything to say about the matter?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The salaries and the increases are fixed by the classification.


Lucien Cannon: Does the minister refer
to the classification that was made by those American experts imported into Canada, or to some other classification?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The classification brought into force about a year ago.


Lucien Cannon: By whom?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: By the Civil Service Commission.


Lucien Cannon: Last week the Minister of Trade and Commerce explained during a debate in this House that experts brought

into the country by the Government, and who were absolute strangers to the Civil Service had made certain changes in the classification of the civil servants. Am I to understand that the changes which appear in the item I refer to were made by the experts or by the Civil Service Commission itself?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I understand that these
salaries were fixed at the time the classification was made, but what part the American experts played in the classification I could not say off-hand.


Lucien Cannon: What I want to know is who made the classification? The Civil Service Commission, the minister, or the outside experts?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It was certainly not the
minister, but the Civil Service Commission. Whether they had the assistance of these imported experts or not, I could not say.


Lucien Cannon: The minister states he is not responsible for the classification of these employees?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The minister had nothing to do with the fixing of these salaries.


Lucien Cannon: But before the classification was made was not the minister consulted by the Civil Service Commission or by the experts, because, after all, the people who can give proper information in regard to the employees of a department are the head, the deputy head, and the branch heads? Were they consulted, and if so, did they make reports written or verbal?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The classifiers had a staff of experts of their own, and also consulted the deputy head before the classification was approved.


Lucien Cannon: Am I to understand that the deputy head of the Department of Agriculture is responsible for the classification of these particular employees. If so, I would like the minister, who is the head of the deputy head, to tell us the reasons for these varying increases.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The evidence of the
deputy minister was taken by the commission, who came to their own decision.


Lucien Cannon: I should like to know
from the minister, now that his deputy is here and can give him the required information, why the junior translator is getting a bigger increase than the translator himself?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Although the evidence of the deputy minister was taken, the final 
decision was in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. Therefore, I do not hold the deputy minister responsible for these increases that appear here. As I have explained before, there is the old classification and the new. This particular class of junior translator begins at a salary of $1,200 under the old system, with annual increases of about $50 a year up to about $1,600. Under the new classification the minimum salary of translator is fixed at $1,440 with annual increases of $60 up to the maximum.


Georges Parent: May I ask if the superintendents of the various experimental farms in this country are competent men?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: They are, so far as I
know.


Georges Parent: Then if they are, I should like to know why, when a man on one of these farms wants a holiday, he has to apply to Ottawa instead of to the superintendent of his particular farm?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In case of an emergency, a holiday is given by the superintendent of the farm, and authority afterwards obtained from the Civil Service Commission.


Georges Parent: That just brings me back again to the same question.


Donald Sutherland: I notice that these farm labourers receive a bonus of $420 in addition to their regular salary. About a year ago we obtained the information that the expenditure under the head of civil government for the experimental farm at Ottawa was $93,295.95, and that the wages paid to the farm labourers amounted to $163,831.87. I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Parent) need worry himself so much about the holidays of these men on this little farm out here. They are having a pretty fair time considering the number employed and the wages paid them. Over a quarter of a million dollars is being paid in salaries out here on this farm on the outskirts of the city, and I think the amount is altogether too great considering the results from the farm. I believe that the gooner a radical reform is instituted in connection with the experimental farm system in this country, the better it will be for Canada. I think that an example should be set those who are engaged in agriculture in this country, instead of having a great show place for the whole country when they come to Ottawa The work carried on at the farm is largely lost to the average farmer, and a quarter of

a million dollars, under present conditions, is altogether too much to spend in connection with a farm of this kind. I do not think, furthermore, that these expenditures should be charged up against the province of Ontario, which, we are told, is being benefited thereby. I do not see what ground there is for telling us that we ought to be satisfied, when we have to do the experimental work ourselves on our own farms and pay for it.


Mr. DAVIS (Neepawa) :: I see there is
an increase in the number of messengers from eleven to thirteen. What are the duties of these messengers?


Georges Parent: They carry fresh eggs.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I shall answer first the statement of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). It is true that a great deal of money is expended on the Central Experimental Farm, but it carries on work of great benefit to the whole country. I think that in that Central Farm we have one of the best establishments that can be found anywhere. Only last summer, a prominent and well known agriculturist of Great Britain visited Ottawa, and, with a letter of introduction from me to the Director of Farms, he went to the Experimental Farm and looked over our livestock and the work that was being done. On his return he stated that, so far as he was aware, there was no establishment of this kind anywhere in the world, and certainly not in Great Britain. The farmers here, he said, had a tremendous advantage in having experimental work carried on for them, in having new lines produced, new cereals, new fruits, new vegetables and roots, such as he saw out on the farm, and so forth. All this information, after it is gathered together, the farmers have absolutely free of charge, and we have in Canada a tremendous opportunity for the development of agriculture. There are very many new areas in certain provinces where land and climatic conditions vary to a great extent. A settler may come from England or, say, the state of Alabama, and if he landed in those parts of the country and had no information, it would take him four or five years at least of valuable time getting established and studying the conditions prevaling there. All this time would be lost before he finally could get to work. With our experimental farm system he is able, at the outset, to obtain all the information necessary to take up the line of agriculture most suited to that particular section of the country. In
addition to that, he can obtain information as to the best varieties of seed to sow, how and when to sow it, etc. He can find out the best varieties of livestock to keep and the best method of marketing his products. I consider this a very great advantage.	Only last summer we had
a horticulturist from Oregon who came to Okanagan Valley in British Columbia and visited the station at Sum-merland. After examining the methods carried on there in connection with dry farming and irrigation, he stated that he was well acquainted with all the various farms in the United States, and that in future he would come to Summerland for his information because the work carried on there was better and more reliable than that of any other farm he knew of on the continent of America. Now, take this particular farm which the hon. member for South Oxford referred to. I may say that we have no fewer than thirteen branches there of various lines of work, from experiments in connection with horse breeding down to the breeding of bees and the production of honey. To give one example of the splendid work done on our farms; I may say that the average Canadian hen is responsible for only 65 eggs a year. Out on the farm at Sidney in British Columbia last year, the hens produced, by careful breeding and selection, no fewer than 300 eggs a piece. If we had failed to take advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves in this matter we should never have got anywhere, and our agriculture in this, as in other lines, would drag along in a listless sort of way. You may take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink, and if the farmers of this country have not life enough to take advantage of the opportunities that offer, and to secure all the information they can from our farms, then it is their own fault. I am sure there is no intelligent farmer who can go to the Central Farm, look over the livestock and see the methods of agriculture that are practised there without gaining considerable important information, whether . he farms on Vancouver Island or on Prince Edward Island.


Thomas Vien: How many experimental
farms are there in Canada?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There are twenty-one
regular farms, two tobacco stations, seventy-five illustration stations, and six or seven sub-stations.


Georges Parent: What kind of hens-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I might mention the
methods practised in connection with grain and vegetable plots. These plots are only about one-fortieth of an acre in extent, so small that you cannot use machinery to advantage on them. A new variety of grain may be secured from some other place and an experiment is made to find out whether it would be useful in this country. In addition to that particular plot there would be a number of other check plots planted at the same time, and this goes on from year to year. It is obvious, therefore, that a great deal of work is involved in keeping the place in proper condition, and information is not released until such time as the director of the farm is absolutely certain that what he has to impart is perfectly reliable and that anyone may make use of the information he gives, no matter whether he is in British Columbia or in Nova Scotia. This makes necessary considerable very fine work; it entails a great deal of hand labour, and naturally it means a lot of expense. After the experiments have been carried out the results are applied under field conditions, and the information obtained in consequence is published so that anyone may secure it for the asking, either through the mails, or directly from the farm. I feel sure that these farms are rendering a very valuable service, and a great many men derive considerable benefit from them. Of course, one cannot expect any profits from experimental work of this kind, requiring such minute care and attention, although many of the sections, such as our livestock and dairying sections, and the hog, sheep, and poultry sections, frequently yield a profit.


Donald Sutherland: I do not want the minister to misunderstand me. I am not condemning the experimental farm system. I have always upheld that system, and have been a strong advocate of its extension, but when I refer to the Central Farm in Ottawa I have in mind the fact that you can go westward in Ontario and not find another Dominion experimental farm except a small tobacco farm in Western Ontario for the growing of tobacco. Even the operations of that are confined to a part of two counties and consequently its influence does not extend very far. Just a word or two with regard to those people in western Ontario who are so dense that they cannot follow the example that has been set them here in Ottawa
[Mr. Tolmie.l
and elsewhere by the experimental farm system because they, have not had the advantage of visiting the farm, unless they happened to come to this city, although there is a big stretch of the province of Ontario between its western limits and the city of Ottawa that separates the two and consequently conditions are not very similar. I might, for example, refer to the factory output of dairy products in a certain little spot of western Ontario-the county of Oxford-and to the fact that it equaled for the year 1917, which is the last that I have, the factory output of the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, and almost that of Prince Edward Island. So that as far as the farmers of that part of Canada are concerned, they have evidently been keeping pretty well abreast of the times bearing in mind the result of their labours. What I have objected to is that the experimental farm system is not brought home to the people, and that they do not have an opportunity of reaping the advantage they should derive from the money that has been expended here. I do not say that Ontario has been neglected. As I pointed out, and have repeatedly pointed out, we are doing the things that the Dominion ought to do for us, seeing they are doing those very things for the rest of the provinces. That is the exception I take to this enormous expenditure of over a quarter million of dollars on the farm at Ottawa which plays but a very small part in farming operations so far as the province of Ontario is concerned.


Samuel Francis Glass: I cannot altogether agree
with my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) in his criticism that there has been extravagant expenditure on the farm adjacent to this city. I think the time has passed when it is necessary for any member of this House to defend the expenditures of the Federal Government on agriculture. If I had any criticism to offer, it would be that in my humble opinion the Government have not yet risen to the height which the country should demand of them-and that applies not only to the present Administration, but to Governments that have preceded them. There has always been an insistance upon the curtailment of expenditures when it came to agriculture:	I was glad to hear
the minister's remarks and his defence of the experimental farm. In his speech he touched on the question of poultry, and

having some knowledge of that industry, as well as some interest in it, I recently made a little study of its development in this country. I was influenced to do so more particularly by reason of the fact that last week I was booked to address a gathering of four or five hundred poultry men in the city of London. In connection [DOT]with the inquiries I made I was informed that the production of eggs in this country last year amounted to 2,244,000,000. Dividing this number into dozens we have 187,000,00 dozens of eggs; and then dividing that number.into cases of 30 dozen each it yields a total of 6,233,333 cases, or 15,555 carloads. But, Sir, I find that statistics show that the production of poultry in this country for the year 1920 amounted in value to the enormous sum of $120,000,000. The development of the poultry industry in Canada, and its expansion during the past few years, has been largely due to the splendid work of the experimental farm, and here I give credit to my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) for the legislation that was introduced a year or two ago, whereby the standardization of eggs was brought about, as being a matter of immense value to the poultry industry. I was speaking to the official in charge of the farm here upon the egg production in Canada, and the effect that the standardization of eggs had on our foreign markets. He told me that in the British market the Canadian egg standardized commanded a price of from eight pence to one shilling a dozen more than American eggs from the South. I asked him how the production of eggs in the United States and in the warmer climates compared with production in the colder climate of Canada. He replied that our production was not only better but that the quality of the egg was very much superior. The earliest census of poultry taken in this country goes away back to the year 1695 when in old Acadia there was a total of only 362, but in 1891 we had 12,696,701 in this country. According to the census returns in 1901 the number had increased to 16,651,337; in 1911 it was 29,773,457; and in 1920 the estimated figures of the poultry of the country were 45,000,000 head.
Now we find that this country last year imported a large number of eggs, the total importation amounting to 6,515,928 dozen, having a value of $3,051,833. It wouid seem to be a most regrettable thing that a country of such enormous resources as ours should have to import eggs for its own consumption. But it must be borne
is mind that in 1920 we exported 6,324,838 dozen, having a value of $4,198,430. Our import of eggs showed an average cost of 46.8 cents per dozen, while the export of eggs from this country, by reason of the standardization of our eggs and by reason of their superior quality, obtained for our exporters an average price of 66.3 cents. So that we export our eggs on the basis of 66.3 cents and import them on the vasis of 46.8 cents.
The work done on this experimental farm in Ottawa is not measured by what is produced there, we all know that, and I just simply illustrate the poultry division as only one item amongst many in which the advice given by the management of the experimental farm has been of enormous potential value to this country-a value that it is almost impossible to conceive. I say, success to the experimental farm at Ottawa! I agree with my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) that it is desirable to establish demonstration farms in practically every township if possible, but that work comes largely under the purview of the Provincial Governments, and their work, assisted by the Federal Department of Agriculture, has resulted in very great benefits to our farmers. I trust that this department will not in any way relax their efforts. My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), I notice, is somewhat critical of the expenditure and would economize by reducing the staff; but our expenditure here is nothing at all in proportion to the expenditure on agriculture in the United States, and if we are to develop this great country to its fullest possibilities in agriculture it is obvious that there should be no curtailment so long as the money is wisely used in the development of our experimental farm system.


Thomas Vien: I cannot agree with the previous speaker when he says that model farms in various sections of the country-


Samuel Francis Glass: I said demonstration farms.


Thomas Vien: that demonstration farms should be left entirely to the Provincial Governments. I sympathize with what the hon. member for South Oxford has urged, that we should spend less on these experimental farms and more on demonstration farms all over the country. Why? The minister has just given the reason. On these experimental farms experiments of a very expensive character are conducted, so expensive that the ordinary farmer could not undertake them on his own farm. If

I read correctly the Auditor General's Report, we spent last year $375,000 on the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa. In my opinion this item could have been reduced by over $100,000, and still, experiments on the scale I have described could have been carried on to whatever degree necessary for the purpose of enlightening our farmers. If instead of spending that $375,000 on the Central Experimental Farm the Government had devoted $100,000 or $200,000 in demonstrating in various sections of the country better methods of agriculture and in encouraging farmers by instruction and premium to grow better crops and raise better stock to suit local conditions, greater benefit would have resulted to the country generally; and even had the expenditure been greater than the amount in question it would have been thoroughly justified, because no matter how well the experimental farm in Ottawa is conducted only a very small number of our farmers can afford to visit it and derive personal benefit from the experiments there being carried on. The minister has told us that a distinguished gentleman from England visited the farm last year and expressed regret that they did not have such a farm even in England. Well,
I think this country should be satisfied with what they have in England so far as demonstration farms are concerned. We should not indulge in such luxuries as are exhibited at the Central Experimental Farm. We could easily dispense with a number of these items of expenditure and use the money all over the country for the great advantage of the many rather than as at the present, for the benefit of a few.
In the riding which I have the honour to represent we have an annual exhibition in the month of September which is assisted by the Provincial Government. The provincial department of agriculture send their specialists who give to the farmers very valuable information-information which can be utilized by our farmers to suit local conditions. Prizes are given for the best crops and also for school gardens, and every year the farmers can see the results of the best farming in every parish. But no matter what experiments are carried on at the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa, very few farmers can afford to visit the farm even once in ten years. That is one reason why I sympathize very much indeed with the idea put forward by my hon. friend from South Oxford, that we should reduce the expenditure on our experimental farms and apply 
the money saved to increasing our demonstration farms so that their benefits may be brought home to every locality.
The Federal Department of Agriculture must have at heart the development of agriculture in all sections of the country, and that development is not being promoted to the fullest extent by conducting experiments here in Ottawa where climatic conditions are very much at variance with those prevailing in many other sections of the country. I would urge that the Government reduce their extraordinary expenditure on the experimental farms and devote the money to establishing more demonstration farms.


Mr. BEST:: It is very evident that the speaker who has just taken his seat does not know anything about farming. He speaks as though the experimental farm at Ottawa was just for the benefit of a few local people.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Chairman, I want to correct the hon. gentleman. I never said any such thing.


John Best: The experimental farm at Ottawa has sent samples of grain and shrubs and seeds all over the Dominion. When the hon. gentleman speaks about school fairs in his riding, I may tell him that we have them in my county, and most of the children who plant their seeds in the school plots get those seeds from Ottawa. While I am opposed to extravagant expenditure in any line, I make the statement that when hon. gentlemen get up and talk respecting farming, it is evident that they never did any farming in their lives, or they would not complain about this expenditure of $350,000.


Thomas Vien: I wish to correct the hon.
gentleman. My father was a farmer; I was brought up on a farm; my ancestors were farmers for three hundred years.


John Best: It seems strange that most professional men in this House and out of the House claim that they were raised on the farm. I can certainly vouch for the fact that most of them were milked on the farm, anyway. I think hon. gentlemen are making a great mistake when they find fault with an expenditure of $300,000 or $350,000 on an industry which supplies as much as two-thirds of the wealth of this country. When the Government propose to spend three or four times as much on agriculture as was spent by past governments, we should commend, not criticize them. When I came to this House

ten or eleven years ago, less than one million dollars was spent on agriculture; now I believe we spend between five and six. It the money is wisely spent, no hon. member should find fault with a policy of that kind.
But there is one thing I do deplore-the fact that, as the minister says, the Civil Service Commission select the men for the different branches of this department and arrange their renumeration. I am sorry that the minister is not in a position to select better men to fill positions in his department than those who never farmed a day in their lives. Why are two or three men selected to sit in Ottawa and carry on the business of branches of which they know nothing whatever? We have a glaring example of that kind of thing in hon. gentlemen who get up in this committee and talk about the hours and the time and the holidays. Of course, a lawyer comes into his office at about ten o'clock in the morning, goes out at four or five and counts it a day, but the farmer has to work all day. These speeches that are being made about hours and time and holidays are doing more to hurt the farmers of Canada than anything else that could be done, because they are causing dissatisfaction among our men on the farms who are hired by the month or by the year. There are times when the people in the towns and cities would go hungry if the hired men on the farm did not work fourteen hours a day. I do" not know whether these fifteen days' holidays are supposed to be the legal holidays or whether they are over and above the holidays, but when a man is hired by the month or by the year on the experimental farms he is suposed to work a month or a year and he is supposed to get the legal holidays and no more. Something has been said about a man not being able to get away if a friend had died. Well, I know that in the county which I represent, if a hired man on the farm lost a relative by death the farmer would leave the work in the field and let him go, and our government would do the same. This talk about six or eight hours a day is driving our boys and girls off the farms; making them believe there is pleasure and nothing to do in the cities, and slavery and misery on the farm. I resent that kind of thing. I have spent most of my life on the farm and I say that there is no place where a man can have a better time or enjoy life better than on the farm. I hope that hon. gentlemen who get up to talk about farming and about agricultural
matters generally will be men who know something about farming. ,


Thomas Vien: My. hon. friend intimates
that I do not know the first thing about farming.


Mr. ETHIER:: Oh, no, he was referring
to the member for South Oxford.


Thomas Vien: Both of us, I think, can give him some pointers on farming. The lecture of the hon. gentleman was quite unnecessary. I did not criticize the expenditure of $375,000 for the farming industry, though my hon. friend sought to create the impression that I did. I would like this Government to cut out some foolish expenditure that is proposed in other departments and use the money for the development and improvement of the agricultural industry in this country. I am not criticizing expenditure in respect to experimental farms, but I would like these experiments to be carried out not merely at one central point, but in demonstration farms all over the country, because that would result in greater benefit to the farming community at large. Coming back to my hon. friend's suggestion that I do not know the first thing about farming, I do not like to blow my own horn as the hon. gentleman has blown his, but I may tell him that my ancestors came to this country in 1657 and were all farmers. My father was a farmer; I was brought up on a farm. I own a farm of my own, and am proud of it.


Mr. SMITH:: What about your grandfather?


Thomas Vien: I have said that all my
ancestors were farmers; that should be sufficient for my hon. friend. I think it most improper, therefore, that an hon. gentleman should jump and say that we do not know the first thing about farming. Why, the hon. gentleman himself was ignorant of what he was talking about. He was throwing stones into the garden of his neighbour though he was himself inhabiting a glass house. Let him learn the lesson; let him go a little more slowly when he is impelled to make such remarks with regard to hon. gentlemen on this side.


Fred Langdon Davis: Mr. Chairman, if the committee is to understand that the minister accepts the statement of the hon. member for West Quebec that these messengers gather eggs, in approved committee style I shall have to add another question and ask how many eggs they collect. But that is

just in line with what I really wanted to ask. I notice in going over the list that there are about 125 stenographers in the department and about 11)0 clerks. Even the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) will admit that I know a little about this subject, even though I might not know so much about farming. I would like to ask the minister whether in his department there is any return of the number of letters or pages of typewriting which are turned out by this staff of 125 stenographers? Is any return made to the Civil Service Commission of the number of entries which these clerks are obliged to make? When the chief of staff in a large financial institution is asked whether a certain branch may have an additional junior officer, he can immediately go over the work of that office and determine whether or not the answer should be in the affirmative-and this without making any personal visit to the office. I think some such arrangement should prevail in the Civil Service I have made the suggestion before and I make it again now upon the coming before this committee of the first department's work. I should like and I am sure the committee would like to know whether any return of this sort is made or asked for from the departments, and I trust the minister will not forget my question about the messengers.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We can furnish this information, but we cannot do it offhand. If the hon. gentleman wants it, I shall be glad to give it to him. As regards the duties of messengers, they are used in the usual way, in carrying messages from one office to another in the different departments which are scattered over the city. They are used in connection with the mail and so forth, along all the general lines for which a messenger is used. The messengers in our department are all steadily engaged and, so far as I know, they are rendering good service. In answer to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien), as I have explained before, while we carry on these small experiments on the big experimental farm, they are afterwards tried out under field conditions and the information obtained is given out to the country. The hon. member speaks of what is being done now by the provinces in the way of demonstrating agriculture to the farmers. They use what are known as county representatives who travel about from one farm to another. We assist the provinces at the rate of one million dollars a year for improving agricultural education, some of this money being

used in the way I have mentioned. As regards the work carried on at the experimental farms, not only can a man go there and look at the plots in which these experiments are being conducted, but he can also see the work that is being done under field conditions. For instance, the production this last year of an average of thirty' tons to the acre, of sunflower at a cost of less than $3 per ton placed in the silo, is a demonstration that any practical farmer can benefit by. In addition to that, the crop of oats ran about eighty or ninety bushels to the acre grown under certain conditions. Clover was also grown under different conditions and calculations made as to the cost of production. Therefore, the experimental farm, in addition to demonstration work, is of great use to the practical farmer who wishes to visit it. The money expended at the Central Experimental Farm covers a wide scope in addition to what is done on the farm. For instance, it covers the tobacco farms at Farnham and Harrow. It covers the work at the illustration stations, of which there are seventy-five scattered throughout Canada. It covers the flax extension work, the potato inspection work, the rot investigation work, and it also covers a very important work we carry on for the education of the farmers. It covers the exhibits which are taken from our experimental farms to all the principal fairs in Canada, and we have with those exhibits demonstrators who describe the methods under which the plants are grown or the way in which wool is cared for after it is taken from the sheep and carded. We also demonstrate the candling of eggs and so forth. Any hon. member who has attended any of our large fairs in recent years will probably remember some excellent exhibits from those forms, and that is taking the demonstration to the doors of the farmers. On those seventy-five illustration forms scattered throughout Canada very excellent work is done, showing the farmer exactly how to use the best methods under actual farming conditions, and the experimental farms and illustration stations are cooperating very well together. In addition to that, we cooperate with the governments of the various provinces in many lines of work, and we oftan afford them great assistance which they use to good advantage.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I wish to say a word or two in connection with this expenditure of $375,000. I may differ from some hon.

members on both sides of the House in regard to this matter. My opinion is that the Central Experimental Farm should be the best, not only in the Dominion of Canada, but in any part of the world; When we are expending a few hundred thousand dollars on the Central Experimental Farm in the city of Ottawa, we are only carrying out a policy that has been laid down by the great ministers of agriculture that we have had, not only in the Liberal party, but in the great Conservative party, ever since Canada has been a nation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Archibald Blake McCoig: -Or a young nation. As regards the argument that we should cut down this expenditure, I say to hon. gentlemen who are objecting to it, that we might as well be conducting the affairs of Canada in the Museum a few blocks away as conducting the affairs of Canada in this magnificent Parliament building which we have caused to be erected at a cost to the people of Canada of millions of dollars. When we stand up in this Parliament to-night and object to paltry expenditures of this kind, we are simply playing into the hands of the big interests of the country who are standing back and laughing; we are giving them a certain amount of amusement to think that we, as supporters of agriculture in Canada, are differing in regard to backing up the Minister of Agriculture as long as he carries on the affairs of his department honestly and well. When the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best), whose views and ideas I have supported on many occasions, speaks about patronage, I say that the agricultural department should be conducted in the way in which it is being conducted, namely, by the Civil Service Commission; that patronage should be cut out, and that men who are qualified and who are deserving of promotion should be given the preference, instead of some partisans whose position or advancement may be advocated by hon. members opposite or by members on this side after members on this side come into power. I am in sympathy with giving the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) every assistance possible, belt) p.m. cause I am convinced that when he is fighting his Estimates through Council, he has his troubles, and while other ministers may smile, I believe they will agree with me that what I say is absolutely right. There is a great work for the Minister of Agriculture to do in this country, not merely for the general encouragement of greater production, but for bringing that production to such a point that there will be a reduction in the cost of living to the people of Canada, and without giving such assistance, we shall be unable to achieve that result. As regards extravagance in connection with our experimental farm, I am in favour of giving the minister every possible assistance, even if he does spend a few dollars more than we might see fit to endorse at this particular time. Experimental plots are absolutely necessary. This Parliament, not the Government, has already voted $1,000,000 to be distributed amongst the various provinces in order that they may carry on experimental farms so as to encourage the growing of crops that are particularly adapted for different sections throughout Canada. We have given that money; we are voting it to-night without discussion, and then we are hesitating to say that we stand behind the minister in carrying out the work he is going to do for the great purpose of agriculture which we all profess to be behind to the last. I am in sympathy with this expenditure, even if it may seem extravagant, because I believe the minister is doing the best he can under the circumstances.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: As a representative of a rural constituency 1 chink I ought to say something on this subject. I agree with almost every word that ha,s been said by my hon. friend from Kent (Mr. Mc-Coig). I would ask the minister to consider a proposition which has been put before him on many occasions by myself and others on behalf of the people of the County of Charlevoix-Montmorcney, and that is to reopen the demonstration farm which was established there some time ago, in 1913, or 1914, if I remember correctly, but which was discontinued. I have never yet been able to find out why it was discontinued, hut since I have been a member of this House I have tried on many occasions to get the farm opened, without success.


Mr. MOLLOY:: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I should like an answer from the minister.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out that questions concerning the establishment or re-establishment of demonstration farms have already been ruled out of order on this item. If any question concerning the expenditure of the Department of

Agriculture may be asked on item No. 14, the entire discussion can be started over and over again every time the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture are before the committee. Item No. 14 which we are now considering deals solely with Civil Government expenditure here in th>
city of Ottawa. I would not call an hon. member to order for discussing upon it any matter concerning agriculture that is not specially covered by another Estimate, but where there are specific items in the Estimates I would ask hon. members to wait until they are reached before discussing matters pertaining to them.


John Patrick Molloy: On page 89 of the Estimates there are two items: "Veterinary Director General, $5,040" and "Chief Veterinary Inspector, $3,900." I understand that these are two separate positions occupied by two different men. I should like to know when the office of Chief Veterinary Inspector was established, where the official lives, and what his duties are?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The name of that officer is Dr. George Hilton. He resides in Ottawa and has occupied the position for about 12 or 14 years, roughly speaking. This particular office was created before I became minister; I cannot say how long it has been in existence. The duties of the office are to assist the Veterinary Director' General, and to act in his absence when he is out of town. Dr. Hilton assists in a great deal of the outside work at the various quarantine ports, and in connection with the field inspection work that is carried on throughout Canada.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: The minister has told us that there are 70 odd illustration stations in Canada. How many are in Ontario, and how many in Quebec?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The Department of Agriculture has no illustration stations in the province of Ontario. The Commission of Conservation has been carrying on some work along that line, and so long as thev were doing that the department did not interfere. The proposed changes will perhaps result in a new policy in that direction. We have 30 illustration stations in the province of Quebec at the present time.


Georges Parent: Before this item passes I should like to satisfy my curiosity with respect to one statement made by the minister in his very eloquent and inter-
[The Chairman.]
esting remarks a few moments ago. He stated that years ago hens in this country were producing 65 eggs per year, and that now in some cases they are producing 300 per year. That is very important, I think, and I should like the minister to tell the committee, so that the country at large will know, what special strain it is that produces this large number of eggs per year.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The particular breed
that made the big record was a special strain of Wyandottes at the Sidney Experimental station, 16 miles out of Victoria, B.C. The average hen in this country at the presefit time has been producing 60 and 65 egg's per year.


Lucien Cannon: Who looks after the apiculture work of the department?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Mr. Sladen.


Lucien Cannon: Has this branch taken part in any recent exhibits or fairs throughout Canada?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes, we'had a number of exhibits of bees, queen bees, bee products, and various bee supplies, hives, and so forth, at many of the fairs throughout the country during the past year.


Lucien Cannon: Is the minister in a position to state whether this Government has had any communication with the Provincial Governments, and particularly the government of my province, concerning this matter?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We have been working together in connection with the eradication of bee diseases, but have had no correspondence of any particular note.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: May I ask whether this item of $1,245,639 includes the minimum grant of $2,500 which the agricultural societies are entitled to receive in connection with the exhibitions in the different provinces. I understand the regulations of the department provides for these grants.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Those grants are not included in that item. We pay something over $90,000 for that purpose, in addition to this item. It comes under the heading of livestock.


Joseph Archambault: On page 89 is an item, "Dominion Agrostologist, $3,120." Perhaps it is my lack of proficiency in the English language that makes it necessary

for me to ask the minister what this gentleman does?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: His name is Dr. Malte. He is an expert of very great ability in that line?


Andrew Ross McMaster: But what is the line?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I was just coming to the line. His business is the study of grasses and different varieties of plants, and there are some very interesting examples of his splendid work on the farm. He crosses various kinds of grasses, plants, etc., the general business being the production of fodder plants. He has done most excellent work in improving timothy and clover.


Lucien Cannon: An hon. member on
the other side said to-night that the frequency of our questions to the minister might be interpreted as an opposition to the agricultural estimates. I do not consider that I have to give any explanation of my attitude, because what I have done to-day is only what I do every day; I have performed what I consider to be my public duty by my constituents and by the people of the country at large. But should our attitude on this side, and the attitude of the committee, have had only the result of giving to the minister an opportunity to explain, as fully and as lucidly as he has done, every item in regard to which he has been questioned, I think that we have reason to be very well satisfied. My hon. friend from Kent (Mr. McCoig) has said that hon. members on both sides would gladly support the minister in the administration of his department, and with that statement I fully agree. Agriculture in this country, as the member for Kent has said, is not only important, but essential. We all understand that. I represent a farming constituency, and although I have not the honour to be a member of the farming community of Canada, I have great sympathy with the farmers. I understand their needs and try to help them to the best of my ability. Let us hope that so long as we have a government in Canada we shall always have as competent a minister as the hon. gentleman who now holds that office. The ministers at the head of the Department of Agriculture in past years were most remarkable men in many ways. We had the Hon. Sidney Fisher, who has left a name for himself. That hon. gentleman administered his department in such a way that he has shown the road that has been followed ever since by his successors. I have nothing to say in the way of compliment to the former 60
Minister of Agriculture, who is now leader of the Agrarian party (Mr. Crerar). He stayed in the Government for a few years, and while he was there I think that all the farmers whom he represented were quite satisfied with his administration. On his departure from the department, my hon. friend from British Columbia was called to the Cabinet. To-night we have asked the minister many questions and he has very frankly and good-naturedly answered them, and I say that he has shown our country that the present Minister of Agriculture is just as efficient and competent as any minister we have had before.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend intended to give me some information. Will he give it to-night or at a later date?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The unclassified man referred to, Mr. Cochrane, is an employee of the Dairy Commissioner's Branch, and it is just possible that we are considering his position at the present time.	.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How long has he been in the service?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: About twelve or thirteen years.
Experimental Farms, $1,245,639.50.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I put a question a few minutes ago to the minister regarding experimental farms, which, I understand, include illustration farms. I am told that there was an illustration farm in my constituency some years ago, and I should like to know to-night why it was discontinued. Is it possible to have one started again?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That farm was closed up before I assumed my present position. I regret that I cannot give my hon. friend an answer off-hand, but I will try to get information on the subject.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Would it be possible to have a station established in that district? What are the prospects?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It is possible. We are
contemplating the establishment of some illustration stations in many parts of Canada at the present time, and I assure the hon. gentleman that his district will receive attention.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In the very near
future?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Well, in the near future.


Lucien Cannon: I do not wish to burden my hon. friend with faults that may have



S*4B
been committed in former years before he entered the Cabinet. But in my constituency a member of the former Government ran an election and, rightly or wrongly, with or without authority, but in his capacity as a member of the Government, he promised the electorate of that place that an experimental farm would be established in the County of Dorchester.


An hon. MEMBER:: He had some pull.


Lucien Cannon: This promise was accomplished by a most generous shipment of bulls, which have not, however, been located, and I am sorry to say that the minister seems to have forsaken them. Evidently he considers that they are lost for good. But, talking about experimental farms, let me say that my constituency is most conveniently adopted for an experimental farm, and the people there were given the impression, by the gentleman to whom I have referred, who was a member of the Government at the time, that the Government intended establishing such an institution there. At the time of the election that gentleman was not very positive as to the exact parish in which the farm would be opened. Wherever we addressed the people the farm seemed to be most desirable, and as we went through the county the proposed experimental farm accompanied us. There are in my constituency some twenty-five parishes and when we were through with our tour we had practically twenty-five experimental farms in prospect.


Ernest Lapointe: Did the bulls accompany you?


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, I do not expect the minister who is a serious business man, to establish twenty-five farms in my constituency, or one farm in each parish; but I should be most grateful to this Government if it would redeem the promise made to my constituents a few years ago by one of its former members. The county was expressly promised, an experimental farm. I do not care where it is to be located; I want a farm and the constituency is entitled to one because it has received promise to that effect from a Cabinet minister and from the Government itself. This Government, Mr. Chairman, has forgotten lots of its promises and has broken lots of its pledges unfortunately; but for once let it give) the example of an Administration which fulfils its promises and respects its pledges. Let the Government, as regards my county, keep for once the promise and the engagement entered

into by a former member of the Cabinet. If this promise of an experimental farm for the county of Dorchester had been made by an ordinary candidate, a private individual free from responsibility who tried to carry his election by making lavish assurances, I would not hold the Government responsible; but the promise referred to was made to the county of Dorchester by a minister and the pledges given by him at the time were not only endorsed and ratified but publicly approved of by the then Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. member for Kings (Sir Robert Borden). I think, Mr. Chairman, the Government has a duty and an obligation towards my constituency. I am quite sure it will only be necessary to draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that such a promise has been made and such an engagement entered into to immediately cause that promise to be carried out. Then in my county we shall see the present Government build an experimental farm which will result in the realization throughout my constituency, and throughout the neighbouring constituencies, of the great benefits and advantages so eloquently set forth tonight by the minister himself.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, in answer to the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Cas-grain stated a moment ago* that he could not explain how it was that the experimental farm at Baie St. Paul had been closed, in view of the fact that the thing occurred before he entered the Government. The tobacco experimental farm at L'As-somption was closed during last year, when the hon. minister was at the head of the Department of Agriculture. I am sure that the hon. minister knows perfectly well the reason why it was abolished. While rather anticipating on the time at which I should have spoken on that experimental farm, I stated this afternoon what occurred in connection with the purchase of that farm. Now, while I do not wislj to repeat what occurred in connection with that purchase, I would like at least to point out to the minister that, had they dispensed purchasing that farm, they might have continued to rent it from the college for the purpose of illustrating in tobacco growing and thus continue to the farming community of that district of L'Assomption-Mont-calm the encouragement which they need and all the facilities required to better themselves in the cultivation of tobacco.
I think the hon. minister has not been wanting in good intentions. He did his

best to carry out the suggestions made to him for the establishment of an experimental farm at L'Assomption on a farm that would belong to the department. He could not get the necessary funds, but I do not see why they have not continued to lease that farm, as was done for some years, in order that the farming community could enjoy the advantage of having a tobacco illustration farm at L'Assomption, at a nominal rent. I believe that this would have been only fair to the people in the counties of L'Assomption and Montcalm, who engage so eagerly in that agricultural specialty, and make great, sacrifices so as to be able to develop that industry and who are entitled, I think, to every encouragement that the minister can give in that kind of farming.


Georges Parent: Mr. Chairman-


Paul-Arthur Séguin: If my hon. friend will pardon me I would like to have an answer from the minister. Perhaps he has understood my remarks. In that case I will state in a few words that I wish to know the reason why the Department of Agriculture has closed the experimental station at L'Assomption which was of great value to the farmers and the tobacco growers of that part of the country.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am very sorry indeed
that there was any misunderstanding in connection with the establishment at L'As-somptitfn. I believe that representatives of the Department of Agriculture visited a farm for the purpose of examining the property and investigating as to its usefulness as an experimental station with a view to making a purchase. They were quite satisfied with the conditions there but, of course, that in no way placed upon the Government the responsibility of making the purchase, nor should in anyway have led the owners of the property to believe that a purchase of the land had been determined upon. Such at least is the report made to me by the officers of my department. In such cases it is customary to obtain the approval of the minister, and afterwards the approval of Council, before the land could be purchased. I am very sorry indeed if the owners of that property misunderstood what occurred, or took certain things for granted, in connection with that investigation, and, that in consequence they disposed of their livestock. That is a very regrettable thing indeed. However, as I pointed out earlier in the evening, motives of economy have been held in view as much as possible.
601	.	i [DOT]
There are many directions in which I would like to extend agricultural work throughout Canada, but under the existing financial conditions of the country we are merely spending what we think is absolutely necessary until such times as we shall be in a better position to expand our operations. The location at L'Assomption, I understand, is a very excellent one, and in the event of our opening up more experimental farms or illustration stations, in the near future I can assure my hon. friend that the location in question will receive our careful consideration. It has been recommended as a very excellent place for tobacco culture, suitable in every way, and consequently, being satisfactory, will receive consideration among the first of the places on the list.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I would like to ask
if the same thing will be done for my county?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have a note of the hon. member's county in connection with the applications for experimental farms.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: If the money for thu3
purchase of the farm is not at present available, why not continue the station in operation, because the people of the county are suffering very much by reason of being deprived of it.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Of course in carrying
on the experimental farms there is a demand from time to time for new buildings and other improvements, and if we decided to establish the farm in question I would prefer to own the property in order that we might be free to carry on such development work as the situation would seem to call for.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I would like to remind the minister of a promise that he made to me last year. If I am not mistaken, he assured me that demonstration farms would be located at Matane and Causapscal, two such farms being necessary by reason of the fact that the constituency is divided by a chain of mountains. I asked the minister at that time if he would kindly look into the matter and he promised that he would surely do so. Since then I have not heard anything further, and therefore I would like to know if the minister will give this matter his attention and see if he can possibly locate one, if not two, demonstration farms in the county of Matane where they are absolutely necessary.


Frank S. Cahill: I would like the minister to detail the expenditure mentioned.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not recollect having made any such promise. It is possible that I did lead the hon. member to believe that I would look into the matter, but I am very doubtful if I made a direct promise. However, I will be very glad to have the deputy minister give a report on that particular district.


François Jean Pelletier: I thank the minister and I hope he will keep his word this year. All he has to do is to look up Hansard of last year and he will see that what I say is right.


Mr. STEIN:: I think I have been more
fortunate than my hon. friends who have just spoken, because in the county of Kamouraska we have enjoyed a very fine experimental farm since 1910. It was established there under the Laurier Administration through the efforts of my predecessor the present member for Quebec East (Mr. Lepointe). I hope the minister does not intend to close it as he has done the experimental farm in the county of Charlevoix. Instead of being closed our experimental farm should be enlarged. The deputy minister of Agriculture, who is very well received every time he visits my county, could give very full information to his minister as to that experimental farm, which is situated at St. Anne de la Pocatiere, and is connected with the provincial college of agriculture for boys, where over one hundred and sixty students are studying to become practical farmers. In the village of St. Pascal in the same county we have a school of domestic science for girls. I would very much like to see the minister visit this country, which from the agricultural point of view is, I think, one of the most important in the Dominion, when I am sure he would agree with my description. If he would visit the experimental farm, the college of agriculture and the school of domestic science, undoubtedly he would realize the importance of these institutions.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I shall be very glad to
accept the kind invitation of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. It has been my object to visit as many parts of Canada as possible since assuming my present office, but unfortunately I have not yet be able to visit the fine district of which he speaks. I want to tell the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Pelletier) that it affords me a great deal of pleasure not only to keep my promise of last year but also to make good my promise of this year, although it is only fifteen minutes old. I

can assure him that a site has been selected for an illustration station in his district and it will be started on the farm of Michael Philibert this year.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton) :: I congratulate hon. members from the province of Quebec on receiving so many good things from the Minister of Agriculture. But might I call his attention to the fact that I have frequently asked for an experimental station up in the western part of the province of Ontario which is so badly in need of such assistance? I have had part of a promise, but I have not yet succeeded in having a station established there. The minister has been good enough to establish thirty experimental stations in the province of Quebec-


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Thirty illustration stations.
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton) thirty illustration stations, while in the province of Ontario we have only one. I have no objection to these illustration stations being-established in the province of Quebec, but I think it is about time that the minister began to establish a few such stations in the province of Ontario. I am in full sympathy with their establishment. Years ago I said that I would like to see the day come when there would be an illustration station in almost every county, in these old provinces in particular. So I am not rising for the purpose of opposing hon. gentlemen receiving these illustration farms in their province, but I am merely asking that old Ontario shall receive at least one or two of these stations during the coming year.


Mr. PROULX:: I concur with the hon. member from Lambton that the province of Quebec seems to be favoured more than any other province in regard to the establishment of illustration farms. My hon. friend from Dorchester said that a few years ago his county got quite a number of bulls from this Government. Are these bulls distributed under the patronage system or under the Civil Service Commission? And are there enough to go round each county? Is the department still lending bulls to the farmers in the different counties? I know that some farmers in my county would like to take advantage of the system if it is still being continued by the department.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That is an item that comes properly under livestock. Under our sys-

tem pure bred sires are distributed in dis tricts where no such sires are available, usually in outlying new districts. Our system is for the farmers to form a club of ten members and on their showing that they have a proper number of cattle and that their farms are suitable for rearing stock, we loan them a bull and pay the freight on it to their nearest station. One of the farmers maintains the animal during the three or four years it is left in the district, and then it is moved to some ither section. That has been found to work to the very great advantage of our farmers, particularly those in outlying new districts. I have in mind such districts as that on the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. A large number of settlers have gone into that country, and under ordinary conditions it would have been a matter of ten years before they would have enough money to purchase a pure bred sire-and they would at the end of that time still have scrub stock on their farms. But under this system of the distribution of pure bred sires we are furnishing sires to such districts as these in the first year of their settlement, so that in five or six years the cattle up there will be high grade cattle, not scrub stock, and the livestock wealth of Canada' will be materially increased.


Georges Parent: Of this $1,245,000, what amount will go to each of the experimental farms in Canada?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Charlottetown, $31,365; Kentville, $41,900; Nappan, $41,338; Fredericton, $40,482; Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, $40,650; Cap Rouge, $44,210; St. Joachim, $18,570; Lennoxville, $44,760; La Ferme, $35,956; Kapuskasing, $35,405; Morden, $30,970; Brandon, $42,880; Indian Head, $42,495; Rosthern, $28,600; Scott, $25,570; Swift Current, $19,450; Lethbridge, $42,150; Lacombe, $42,150; Summerland, $39,765; Invermere, $14,500; Agassiz, $36,500; Sidney, $27,090.


Lucien Cannon: In answer to my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx) the minister said that sires were being distributed in outlying districts, and the hon. member for Prescott had mentioned my county. I wish to say that my county is not an outlying district.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not want to cast any reflection on the hon. member's district. Perhaps after I have taken advantage of his kind invitation to visit him, I will know more about it.
*s


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka) :: Will the minister inform the committee what is done at these demonstration stations?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: They are more properly called illustration stations. The work is done on the farm of some good farmer in a selected district, under the direction of our Director of Experimental Farms. The seed is furnished and the farmer told what to do. The farm is usually seeded along a public road and the work is done in full view of the road so that it may be observed by anyone in the district. The farmer sees the experiments made right in his locality by a brother farmer, and very excellent service is being rendered with but a small outlay.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How long have these illustration stations been in existence?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Since 1915.


William Daum Euler: How many are there in Ontario?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The Conservation Commission has been carrying on certain work in Ontario, and the Department of Agriculture has not interfered or started any other farms of a similar character in that province. If the suggested action with regard to the Conservation Commission is carried out the Department of Agriculture will take up the matter of illustration stations in Ontario.


William Daum Euler: I understand, then, that in Ontario there is simply the experimental farm at Ottawa; there are no illustration farms?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We have two other farms, one at Kapuskasing, in the clay belt, and a tobacco station at Harrow.


Frank S. Cahill: What has been the success of the Kapuskasing farm and the settlement in that territory? The minister promised last year to make an investigation of the Kapuskasing farm and of the farm known as La Ferme in the Abitibi district in the county of Pontiac.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I regret that I did not have time to visit the Kapuskasing farm; I did pass through that district on a train. But the deputy minister went up and looked over matters at Kapuskasing. We have about 1,280 acres in that farm, about 500 of which are under cultivation and several hundred slashed, not yet cleared. Very excellent crops were produced last year but on account of frost they did not head out as well as might be expected. The production of fodder, however, was very good in-

deed, and from the experiments conducted up there we are of the opinion that that district has a very good future before it as a livestock district, having regard to the production of fodder plants. It will be what is known as a good hay and grass [DOT] district, suitable for the raising Of livestock. With regard to the settlement in the district, that is a matter with which the provincial government has to deal. I could not give very definite information in that regard.


Frank S. Cahill: Does the minister know whether the population there has increased or decreased since last year?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not know that there have been many changes since last year, but I understand that the Provincial Government is opening up a very extensive pulp plant up there. They have laid out a town near the farm at Kapuskasing, and with the market right at their door there should be a considerable development of agriculture in the immediate neighbourhood.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: How is it that there are thirty odd illustration stations in Quebec and none in Ontario? Is it a matter of Government policy, or do Ontario farmers not require them?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have pointed out that the Conservation Commission have been carrying on illustration farms in parfs of Ontario, particularly in Dundas county. Ontario is one of the most advanced provinces in the whole of Canada; it has perhaps more pure bred stock than any other province. The Central Experimental Farm is in Ontario; some of our largest exhibitions are held in that province, and on these grounds we have not pushed the illustration stations as we have in Quebec. So far as western Ontario is concerned, I do think it is not well served with farms; there should be an experimental farm in that section. Under present financial conditions, however, we have been loath to open up new farms any faster than absolutely necessary. When we feel that we can proceed with safety, the matter will be given attention.


William Daum Euler: In view of what has been said in regard to the number of institutions of this kind in the province of Quebec, does the minister not feel that as a matter of practical justice to Ontario he should locate in that province some of these stations that are to be located? I am not one of. those who want to weigh one province

against the other, but from the intimation given by the minister to-night it would seem that Ontario is not being rightly treated. We have in the western part of the province the Ontario Agriculture College, a very good institution, but one which is under provincial jurisdiction. Perhaps it is on account of the service given by that college that the Dominion Government has paid so little attention to the province. I would like to associate myself with what the member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) said; I do not think that the expenditure which is being made in connection with the experimental farm at Ottawa is an improper one. After all, agriculture is one of the chief industries in Ontario and I believe the people of the province will be right behind the minister in the expenditures of moneys along these lines-except that I think he is not widening out sufficiently so far as Ontario is concerned. I am not inclined to make a criticism that might come to the minds of some of us from Ontario who are not supporters of the Government. But possibly these experimental farm and illustration stations are located in Quebec, because they are intended to be somewhat of a temptation to the people of that province to support the Government, and on the other hand, perhaps, we do not get them in Ontario because the Government feels sure of that province anyway. I know that is not the case with the present Minister of Agriculture, but possibly it has been the case in the past. I should like to suggest to the minister that he seriously consider whether he is giving Ontario that attention to which it is entitled as compared with other provinces.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: As I mentioned a moment ago, I think Ontario is deserving of more of these illustration stations than it has, and now that the Commission of Conservation will likely be giving up that particular work, we shall be glad to go into the matter very fully.


William Daum Euler: I presume, in view of that, the minister will seriously consider establishing one of those illustration stations in North Waterloo.


Mr. NESBITT:: The minister must bear in mind that the people of old Ontario are probably the best farmers we have in Canada at the present time. In my section of country, we all have experimental farms at the expense, not of the Government, but of private individuals themselves. We have besides that at Guelph, a college of

agriculture which is probably the best agricultural college in America. We have also, in probably every county in Ontario, district representatives who are paid by the Dominion Government, and these men take great pains in trying to instruct anybody who requires instruction in any line of farming. While the province of Ontario, I have no doubt, would be very glad to get these experimental farms and illustration stations, at the same time, we are not suffering in the older parts of that province, in that regard. The minister is quite right in stating that in Ontario we nearly all have high-class stock, horses, sheep, pigs and cattle. We do not require any loans of sires; we have the sires; we have some scrub bulls which we can send down to the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) if he wants them. We are culling them out rapidly at the present time, and we can easily afford to give them to any sections of country requiring something a little better than they have themselves. I am speaking of conditions in southern Ontario in particular. Therefore, I do not think that while the country is so burdened with debt, we should press the Minister of Agriculture or any other minister in this Government to increase expenditures under any possible condition. While my hon. friends from Quebec and other provinces may be anxious to have illustration stations and experimental farms, I hope they will bear with the Minister of Agriculture for a few years yet until we pay off some of our enormous debt. There will not be much use in our raising crops or anything else if the profits are all eaten up in taxes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is very magnanimous in regard to the amount of money that should go or not go to Ontario in experimental farms or illustration stations. I would remind him that from the Auditor General's Report of last year, the Central Experimental Farm in Ontario consumed something like $385,000 of public money. That is more than one-quarter of the total amount expended on experi-
11 p.m. mental farms and illustration stations in the whole Dominion. Therefore, I would remind my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) and also the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Euler) that the great province of Ontario is being pretty well treated at the present time at the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. The policy which the minister has adopted in regard to illustration stations and experimental farms is the policy which I have advocated in this House ever since I have come here, and I am very glad to see him taking it up. Has he gone down to the gardens by the sea and established any of these illustration stations there? If not, does he propose to do so? Are there any illustration stations in New Brunswick?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There are six.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am glad to know that illustration stations are being established in New Brunswick, and I suppose also in the other Maritime Provinces. Like the hon. member for North Oxford, I would draw the attention of the minister to the fact that while we are anxious to have these illustration stations established throughout the Dominion, if that will aid in the development of agriculture, his are the first Estimates that have been brought before the House this session, and I regret very much to see that in item No. 14, which has already been passed, there is an increase of $55,672.50 over last year, and in the item under discussion, there is an increase of $30,639.50 over last year. I also find that in practically every one of the items that immediately follow on the same page, an increase over last year is being asked for. I would remind the minister, as he has been reminded many times throughout this country, in different ways, that a very serious financial situation is confronting the country. As regards the Estimates that have been brought down, there is, in nearly every case, an increase in the expenditures for the different departments of the public service. It does seem to me that the minister could have set a good example to his colleagues and to the people of the country as a whole if in this year of all years he had shown he was prepared to cut his garment according to his cloth, and had tried in some way to reduce the very large expenditures thathe is asking of Parliament at the present time. We find increases in nearly every item of this list, and it does seem to me that my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture and the other ministers who are responsible for the Estimates that are brought down should have pared down the figures to such an extent as to show that for the next few years they were prepared to spend only what was absolutely necessary in the interests of the public service. Let us wait until the financial condition of the country straightens up to a certain extent, and until the people have a little more confidence in our financial position than they

have at present before launching on these large expenditures. But we find that large expenditures are being made, and that further large expenditures are being asked for, and that there are very substantial increases in almost every item. It does seem to me my hon. friend could very well have set an example to his colleagues by paring down the expenditures in the different branches over which he has control.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I understand from the
minister that there are over thirty illustration stations in the province of Quebec, and only one in the province of Ontario. The minister frankly admits that Ontario has been poorly served in that respect. He says that he would take Ontario into consideration except for the burden of the national debt. Consequently, I feel that he has burned his bridges behind him, and that for the future western Ontarion may not look for any of the advantages that arise out of the system of illustration stations which the Government has built up in other provinces. To my mind the hon. member for East Lambton is entitled to a great deal of credit for bringing this question before the minister in this committee tonight. I am sorry to say that I quite disagree with the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), in his idea that Ontario does not need these illustration stations. I think the reverse is true. The minister himself admits that such stations would be a great benefit to the province of Ontario, and I should therefore like to know whether it is part of the .Government's policy that the province from which I come is to be relegated to the back benches so far as financial assistance from this Government for the betterment of' our farming population is concerned. The policy seems to be designed for the purpose of passing Ontario by. I wish the hon. minister would be more definite. He has said that Ontario is entitled to these stations, that she needs them, but that owing to the national debt it is impossible to grant them. Ontario has been quiet about this and many other things, while the largess of this Government has been showered without stint upon the province of Quebec. Ontario has sat by and seen it done, perfectly willing to submit until that time comes which is indicated in the old adage, "It is the last straw which breaks the camel's back." I wish the minister would be more definite. If we are to be deprived of these stations because of the burden of debt, I would ask whether the minister is going to stop all improvements
f Mr. Copp.]
because of the debt? It seems to me that the benefit to the agricultural population of this whole country from a policy which I would indicate by the words "full steam ahead" would be inestimable, and I thinic the minister should say whether or not the present policy is one intended to ignore the province of Ontario and its just rights. The province has not been forward in claiming any special consideration from the Government and I trust that before this item goes through, the minister will intimate that he can find a way to do the square thing by Ontario as to the establishment of illustration stations in that province.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not see how anybody could have interpreted my remarks as meaning that it was impossible to do anything for Ontario until the national debt was wiped out, or that I had any intention of ignoring that very important province. What I did say was that this work in Ontario, so far as illustration stations are concerned, had been canned on by the Conservation Commission to a certain extent, and in view of the fact that we were spending large sums of money on the Central Experimental Farm, in Ontario, we did not interfere, but that now the Commission was probably ceasing that work, Ontario was to be given immediate consideration. I think that is quite clear enough. Those are my intentions as minister. I have said half a dozen times, I think, tonight that I recognize how important agriculture is to Canada. We have an immense sum of money invested in that industry, about seven billion dollars, and I can assure my hon. friend I fully realize its importance. I should like to see this work developed, and I think it can be done with safety in many parts of Canada, to the very great advantage of the country as a whole. These things, however, are surrounded with difficulties. I may have lots of wishes, but it is another thing to get the money. I fully realize the importance of Ontario, and even admitted to my hon. friend opposite that Ontario might have been better treated. I fully realize the situation, and when we begin to select sites for our illustration stations this year, I can assure my hon. friend Ontario will receive earnest attention.


John Ewen Sinclair: The minister stated that there
were certain illustration stations in the county of Dundas, and other places in the province of Ontario. Just how many are there in the province of Ontario?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: About 16 or 17 under
the Conservation Commission. Some are in Dundas county and others up near Galt.


John Howard Sinclair: How many are there
in Nova Scotia and where are they situated?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In Nova Scotia there are seven situated in the following places: Kennetcook, Tatamagouche, New Glasgow, Sidney, Big Baddeck, Mabou, and Yarmouth.


Donald Sutherland: I take exception
to the remarks of the hon. member for north Perth (Mr. Morphy), in which he conveyed the impression that I considered illustration stations were not of very much value.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I was referring to the
hon. member for north Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), although it is possible that I may have said South Oxford.


Donald Sutherland: That makes considerable difference. The hon. member for Westmoreland, (Mr. Copp), made particular inquiries to what was being done in New Brunswick, and when he found that there were a great many more farms in that province than he was aware of, he immediately turned round and said that he thought there was quite sufficient done for Ontario and referred to the large expenditure of about one quarter of the amount for experimental purposes in that province, a repetition of what the minister said. Last year I introduced a resolution dealing with this question, and that was the answer we got on that occasion, and I have been urging as strongly as I could the necessity for something along these lines in that province. Frequent reference (has been made to the Conservation Commission and what they are doing in the way of establishing illustration stations. I do not know of a single illustration station that has been under the Conservation Commission. It is true there was one in the county of Dundas, but so far as western Ontario is concerned, I do not know of one. The member for Pontiac, (Mr. Cahill), was inquiring very diligently to-night about what was taking place at Kapuskasing, and as to whether the settlers were remaining there and increasing in numbers. I believe that yesterday he referred to this matter in the House and endeavoured to cast an unwarranted reflection on the late Provincial Government for what they did in this direction. I might remind the hon. gentleman that this farm at Kapuskasing
was established to furnish employment for interned prisoners, large numbers of whom were employed clearing the land, and if they are not there to-day it is for the good reason that they were only to anxious to get away. I suppose he would use it as an argument against the colonization policy of the late Provincial Government in Ontario because the interned prisoners are not still on the Government experimental farm there. Had it not been for that government's policy, I doubt whether we should have had a farm there or not. We have a small tobacco farm of some forty acres, and it is almost self-sustaining from the revenue it gets. If you make comparisons between that farm and any of the others you will be convinced that it is an example' to all demonstration stations in Canada. Its revenue almost equals its expenditures. Now, as I said before, I emphatically protest against this enormous expenditure on the farm at Ottawa being charged against Ontario, because it is not serving the purpose for which the experimental farms were intended. I do not intend to belittle the work done, but I contend that it is of equal value to all other parts of Canada as it is to Ontario, and when you find so many experimental farms, stations, and sub-stations established years ago, and new ones opened up in various omise, if we cannot do things for the province of Ontario. Do not forget that the parts of the country, there is not much force in the argument that we must econ-province of Ontario contributes about one half of the revenue collected in this country. My colleague from North-Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) made the statement that the district representatives were being paid by the Federal Government. They are not; they are paid by the Provincial Government and the municipalities in the counties in which they are located. It is true that a certain amount of the vote in aid of agriculture, which is divided pro ratio among all the provinces, is applied to pay the salaries of these district representatives; but in no sense is the Dominion Government contributing to the support of the representatives in that province.


William Duff: Has the minister any information with regard to the kind of agricultural implements which the Government has purchased for the different experimental and demonstration farms throughout Canada? Whether correct or not, my information is that these farms are supplied with implements purchased in the

United States and that the Government does not patronize the Canadian manufacturers of agricultural implements. Is this true, or is any percentage of the implements used on these farms of American manufacture?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: All the implements used on the experimental farms are purchased in Canada. Only in very exceptional cases are implements bought in the United States. They are secured there only when they cannot be got in Canada.


William Daum Euler: The Government, I presume, does not buy from the Grain Growers.
Mr. D'ANJOU:	(Translation.) Mr. Chairman, the hon. member from Matane (Mr. Pelletier) reminded the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) a moment ago of the promise he had made last year to establish two illustration farms in his county*. May I remind the hon. gentleman that he had also promised to establish an experimental farm in the county of Rimouski. I hope I shall not offend my hon. friend from Matane by saying that the county of Rimouski is just as progressive as his own, as far as agriculture is concerned. I have no objection to having two illustration farms in his county, but I would like the minister to keep his promise as regards the establishment of at least one experimental farm in the county of Rimouski, whose agricultural achievements are so great that I do not know of any other county in the whole Dominion which could compete with it and it may well serve as an example to the others.
As the hon. gentleman does not understand the French language, I shall ask his deputy, whose knowledge of both languages is a proof of a keen intellect, -to kindly explain to him what I have said. I insist upon an answer from the hon. gentleman.


John Albert Sexsmith: Mr. Chairman,-


Joseph Archambault: Just a moment; an answer is expected of the minister.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I could not hear what
the hon. gentleman said.


Joseph Archambault: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that is no answer.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: If the hon. member speaks loud enough for my deputy to hear him I will be glad to give an answer to his question.
Mr. D'ANJOU:	(Translation.) Last
year, J had the deputy minister, who knows
v 
both languages, to act as interpreter. Here is the gist of my demands: I want the minister to keep the promise he gave me and to the hon. member for Matane as well. He promised to start an illustration farm in that county and, last year, he promised to establish one in the county of Rimouski. The hon. minister may say that the financial conditions of the country do not warrant such expenditure, but, in accord with the hon. member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) and many others who have taken part in this discussion on agricultural matters I think that the Government will never spend too much to help develop this industry. Let us have less military schools and more agricultural colleges, more demonstration farms, more experimental farms. Nobody will grumble. I want the hon. minister to answer me and I would like to know, whether or not he intends to establish an experimental farm in Rimouski during the year.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I quite agree with
what my hon. friend has said with regard to the importance of agriculture. We have had an illustration station at Rimouski but it is being closed up and we are now looking for a more favourable location.


John Albert Sexsmith: In asking the question a short time ago how many illustration stations were located in the province of Ontario and how many in the province of Quebec, I had not then the thought in my mind that the latter province, or any other province, had too many such stations. I did think, however, that Ontario might have a little more attention. The money spent on these experimental stations, or illustration farms, or whatever you choose to call them, is, I think, money well spent. The minister, in my opinion, in reaching out and trying to develop this experimental work, and educating people in regard to it, is doing a good thing and should receive encouragement from Parliament. He mentioned something about the work that the Conservation Commission has been performing in Ontario. Well, I know they have been doing a little work in the county of Dundas, but the whole of the central part of Ontario has not been looked at so far as I know- there has not been an attempt made by this Government to do anything to encourage the farming industry in that section of the province. I want to impress upon the minister the necessity of taking the district referred to into consideration

and giving it his best thought. Before sitting down I would like to ask what has been the nature and the extent of the work carried on by the Conservation Commission in the province of Ontario. We have been told that they had some sixteen or seventeen stations in the province, but what work did these stations perform? These few little experiments carried on by the farmer himself under the direction of the Commission do not compare with the work of an illustration or demonstration farm. Such stations are not of the same nature as demonstration or illustration farms. However, I do not wish to criticize the work of the Conservation Commission. No doubt it has been- a good work but is not such as would be done by the farms to which I have referred.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: The minister has
stated that there are thirty illustration stations in the province of Quebec. Well, there have been sixteen such stations in my county, carried on under the Conservation Commission. The work done by that commission in the county of Dundas has been eminently satisfactory. It is highly appreciated by the farmers there and I entertain the hope that now the commission is going out of existence the work will be done under the Department of Agriculture. When the Conservation Commission undertook these operations in the first instance it was planned that the work would continue for a period of years. That period has not expired; nevertheless, the work is unfinished and unless it is continued on the farms selected by the commission a great part of the work so far accomplished will have lost its value. I would like to ask the minister if the work on these sixteen demonstration farms will be carried on now that the commission is to be abolished.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In reply to the hon. member's inquiry I may say that we will go into the whole matter very carefully. It is impossible to say at present exactly what will be done, but no doubt such action will be taken by the Department of Agriculture as will afford an opportunity to carry on illustration farm work in that particular section where work was already being done.


Peter McGibbon: It is quite evident that the people who kick the hardest get the most. Apparently that is about the position of certain people in the province of Ontario. According to my hon. friend (Mr. Casselman) there are sixteen
illustration stations in his county but to realize what they are doing, or what good they can be accomplishing, rather surpasses my imagination. There are hundreds of miles of Ontario territory north from the city of Toronto where the climatic and soil conditions are absolutely different from what they are in old "Ontario, and where we have absolutely nothing of the kind that my hon. friend from Dundas has spoken of. That being so, I think we have a just cause of complaint against the department because of its treatment of that part of the province. The province of Quebec has thirty of these stations. Well, we do not begrudge them those stations and yet I believe Quebec has been promised to-night the establishment of a further number. Nevertheless, when we ask what can be done, or what will be done, for the province of Ontario it appears that nothing can be said. I think that bearing in mind the treatment extended to the other parts of the country the policy of the department cannot be defended. What do a few demonstration or illustration farms in one county amount to, a county where the climatic and other conditions differ entirely from those in other parts of the province. In northern Ontario we have districts where there has never, so far as I know, been one dollar spent by this Government in attempting to solve the difficulties which confront the settlers now located there, and the new settlers who are constantly going in." So far as I know not one dollar has been spent by this Gov-erment towards solving the difficulties which are confronting the settlers who have been there for years and whose number is being constantly augmented.


Samuel William Jacobs: Put them out.


Peter McGibbon: No, we
will not put them out. That is an important part of this province, and it is going to become a still more important part. But I say those difficulties should not be left to the farmers to solve, and it is the duty of this Government to do something to assist those men.


John Albert Sexsmith: I am very pleased
indeed that the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Casselman) has thrown some light on the subject of what the Conservation Commission has been doing. He says that sixteen out of the seventeen illustration stations established in Ontario are located in his particular riding down in the southeast corner of the great province. He adds: "Of course, this work is not yet completed

and I want the Government to promise to complete it." Why, Mr. Chairman, the Conservation Commission are running a good percentage of the farming industry of his riding if they have sixteen stations in one county. I must sharply criticise the Government for having allowed the Conservation Commission to spend money, and especially to spend it all in one county, and then to come to the House and tell us what they have been doing for the great province of Ontario. We find that those seventeen stations are all located in one little county adjacent to Ottawa where the commissioners can run out in the morning and come back in the evening. Despite my good friend here, I protest against continuing those sixteen experimental farms in the county of Dundas. I have not anything against the member for Dundas, and I exonerate the minister, but the hon. member must have had a great pull with the Chairman of the Conservation Commission. Is there a summer resort in that county?


Orren D. Casselman: It is a farming county entirely.


John Albert Sexsmith: I was asking the Chairman of the Conservation Commission. I was wondering if he had a summer resort there and that that was why the sixteen stations were established in one county. I am strongly opposed to spending so much money in one little locality, for the expenditure cannot possibly give the results that would follow if it were spread out over the province.


Donald Sutherland: I am glad we are getting light on something that has been rather a mystery to me. Some hon. members may remember that I moved a resolution last session dealing with our experimental farms, and the Minister of Agriculture attempted to refute the arguments that I advanced, but when I rose to reply the hon. member for Dundas got the attention of the Speaker and moved the adjournment of the debate, with the result that nothing more could be said on my resolution. I do not know whether it was because he had been so well taken care of and he was afraid that we would become aware of what had happened in Dundas, but he was apparently very anxious for the debate to close. Now the same arguments that have been advanced this evening for economy were advanced last year by the minister. "Yes", he said, "I realize that something should be done in the province of Ontario, but we must economize." I have been criticised tonight for referring to the enormous

expenditure for farm labour under the head of civil government on the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa, which farm I contended did not serve our province in particular. To my surprise I see from the Public Accounts that there was an increase for ordinary farm labour on that farm of $54,000 over the amount expended last year. Yet we are told that there is not any money available for a few illustratioi farms in the rest of the province. The expenditure on ordinary farm labour was $163,831 last year according to the Public Accounts, in addition to the $94,000 paid under the head of civil government to men who are connected with the farm. I do not think the argument that we must economise has much force when we find that sort of expenditure going on. I would like to know if the $420 bonus that most of those farm labourers have been receiving is going to be continued. I do not think some of my hon. friends opposite need worry very much about the holidays those men are entitled to, for this $420 bonus occupies nearly one-half the space on both pages of the Public Accounts, and besides that there is that $54,000 increase over last year's figures for farm wages.


Orren D. Casselman: Inadvertently I have succeeded in raising a veritable hornets' nest in referring to the sixteen illustration farms in my constituency. I should have added that those sixteen farms constitute only one scheme. The idea was to experiment in one county, and it just happened that my county was selected. The farms were chosen and the farmers were given advice as to how to best develop their particular farms, but very little money was spent. The work is done entirely by the farmers themselves. It is true they get advice and instruction and some amount of guidance from agricultural experts, but this represents all the assistance given. The experiment has turned out so successfully that I think it might well be extended to other counties, for it constitutes a scheme of education which can be conducted at the minimum of expense and with the maximum of profit.


John Albert Sexsmith: I am further enlightened on the work of the Conservation Commission and I wish to apologize to my hon. friend from Dundas if. I said anything that hurt his feelings, because we were led to believe that there were sixteen or seventeen illustration stations in Ontario. Now we find that it is practically one scheme in one county, although perhaps

involving more than one farm. Put in that way, perhaps it does not sound so bad as giving Ontario credit for having seventeen stations when we really have only two. I understand there is one station in the tobacco district, and the other is this system which really constitutes only another station. I am more than thankful to my hon. friend from Dundas for giving us this information.


William Daum Euler: We have delved into this matter to some extent and I would like to [DOT] get some further information in regard to the facts. I think the minister said the Conservation Commission had some seventeen stations of one kind and another in the province of Ontario, and afterwards we gathered from the hon. member for Dundas that sixteen of those stations were in his county, but he has since explained that they constitute only one scheme. I would like to know whether that scheme is only one of the seventeen stations the minister referred to, or whether the sixteen stations in the county of Dundas comprise sixteen out of the seventeen stations credited to Ontario; and, if so, where the other station is. I never heard that the Conservation Commission had engaged in any agricultural activities in western Ontario.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The seventeenth is at Galt.


William Daum Euler: That is, there is only one other in addition to the sixteen stations in Dundas county?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


John Ewen Sinclair: What crops are grown on those illustration farms, and what system of rotation is followed?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The regular system is to follow certain rotations,-four years in Quebec, and three, four and five years in the western provinces. The usual crops produced under a system of mixed farming are grown under the illustration station scheme.	,


John Ewen Sinclair: Is
more than one kind of crop grown? And do you have more than one rotation?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Several crops are grown at the same time. You have your farm conducted under the supervision of a director, who carries on a certain line of work, and you have a chance of seeing
the various rotations that are practised on the larger experimental farms.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose the minister
is aware that the residence of Sir Clifford Sifton, former Chairman of the Commission of Conservation, is located in the district from which the member for Dundas comes, and that probably accounts for the fact that sixteen illustration farms are there.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I understand it is not
a fact.


John Ewen Sinclair: The
minister has told us that it has been the custom in these illustration farms to have a rotation of crops on one farm. I understand that the general object of the illustration farms is to give the rural communities the benefit of information gained at the central farms and other experimental stations. I suggest to the minister that he would carry out that purpose better if, instead of having a rotation of crops on one farm, crops were grown on each farm in the community. In that way you would be benefiting four, five, six or seven farmers, according to the rotation in a community; you would be encouraging more farmers and giving information and suggestion to a larger number of people each year.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I shall be glad to give
consideration to my hon. friend's suggestion. It would be rather more difficult to carry out. In fact, we expect all the farmers in the community to derive benefit from the work done on these illustration farms, through their observation of it.


John Ewen Sinclair: What proportion of the vote that we are now considering will go to the maintenance of illustration farms?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: About $33,000.


John Howard Sinclair: I suggest to the minister that as it is now about midnight and the discussion has been rather long-though I have no doubt it has been illuminating-we should report progress.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I do not want to keep
the committee here at any length, but before we rise I would ask that we take up item number 4. I would like to take it up at all events, and if it should give rise to any prolonged discussion I would be quite prepared to have the committee rise then.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is impossible to
discuss item number 40 and item number 4 at the same time. Shall item 40 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Georges Henri Boivin: Carried.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister knows
that if we take up item 4 to-night we shall be prevented from making any motion when we come to supply on the Estimates of this department some other day. I think it is only fair that we should not take the Estimates of the Department of Justice tonight.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, I quite understand that that is the fact. On the other hand, is it unfair that we should seek to open more than one department on the same day? I know that we have had a very prolonged discussion; I admit it has been most interesting.


Ernest Lapointe: Let us go on with
agriculture.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am perfectly frank; there is no disguise about the thing at all. I think it is fair that we should open up the two departments which it was announced we would bring forward to-day. My purpose is exactly what the hon. gentleman says it is; I do desire to have it opened. I do not desire to keep anybody here any unreasonable length of time; I am quite willing that we should report progress just as soon as this item has been regularly and properly brought up. I think hon. gentlemen will recognize that I am not asking anything unfair in that respect.


John Howard Sinclair: I do
not think the minister should insist on going into the Estimates of the Department _of Justice to-night, for another reason. At the time the announcement was made that the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture and of the Department of Justice would be taken up, it had not been brought to the attention of the Government that the Opposition objected on account of the Auditor General's Report not being down. The Prime Minister stated to-day that he would not insist upon going on with the Estimates of any department in cases where a large number of the Estimates were dealt with in the fourth volume of the Auditor General's Report. In looking at that portion of the report which deals with the Justice Department I find that items amounting to $1,644,168.38 are dealt with in volume 4- about one-half the total expenditure of the department. Under these circumstances, I think my hon. friend should not insist upon going into the Estimates of the Department
[The Chairman.]
of Justice at this hour of the night, in the absence of so many members on this side.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Will the hon. gentleman let me see what are the particular items that he refers to as being in volume 4?	'


John Howard Sinclair: I am looking at the summary of the Department of Justice on page II-2, in which amounts aggregating the sum I have mentioned are referred to as being dealt with in volume 4.


Jacques Bureau: We have been discussing Estimates of the Agriculture Department all day. I think it is only fair that the Minister of Agriculture, who has been under fire, should have a chance now to pass a few items. With regard to passing items of the Department of Justice at this late hour to permit the automatic working of the Rules of the House, I for one am against it. If the Minister of Agriculture does not desire to go on with further Estimates of his department, we should rise, report progress, and go to bed. The Minister of Justice says that two departments were announced. Well and good, but it was not expected by members of the House at the time that the Estimates of one of those departments would be taken up at five minutes to midnight, so that we would not have any discussion of the department as we generally have, and that they would try to play this-I do not call it a trick because we know what is coming. I for one am going to object to taking up at this time any of the Estimates of the Department of Justice. Let the Minister of Agriculture go on, and we will go through his Estimates.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am sorry to see how the hon. gentleman feels about this-he is not going to call it a trick. I have put the matter in the frankest of language, and I do not see that I have anything to be ashamed of. There is some interest in getting along with the public business, and it is a matter of importance that we should not be left on Thursday or Friday, possibly without business for this House to concern itself with. I am not asking for discussion at this hour of the evening; I am asking to have this item called; that is all. I am not asking to have this item passed.


Ernest Lapointe: We know that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Do hon. gentlemen at this stage of the session frankly think that it is absolutely necessary that they should prevent the operation of a rule that was passed in the interest of expediting

public business, and thus create a situation where on Thursday or Friday we shall not be free to go into the Estimates?


Jacques Bureau: Under the rule, with
the consent of the House, the minister can go into Supply.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman is prepared to say now that he is ready to consent-


Jacques Bureau: I will not consent unless the House consents. I do not stand here speaking for the House, but at five minutes to twelve, it is high time that the Minister of Agriculture should pass a few items or we should go to bed.


Georges Henri Boivin: I should like to point out to hon. members that there is now nothing before the committee. Item No. 40 has been declared carried, and unless some other item is called, this discussion is out of order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I asked the Chairman to call item No. 4.


Ernest Lapointe: I protest against this method of trying to prevent members of the House froni exercising a right which belongs to them. When the new rule was passed, it was specially provided that:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the Order of the Day is called for the House to go into Committee of Supply, or of Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question, provided that, except by the consent of the House, the Estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.
That rule was put there to give members of the House an opportunity of moving resolutions whenever the Estimates of one department came before the House for the first time. It is not fair to bring down the Estimates of two departments on the same day. We are quite prepared to expedite the business of the House; let us go on with the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and we will go as far as two o'clock if my hon. friend wants to keep us here; but we object that one of the privileges of members of the House should be dealt with in this way.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
gets very warm and talks about things not being fair. It is not my habit to try to do things that are not fair, and so far as my judgment goes, I am not'trying to do anything that would indicate any unfairness now. In view of what the hon. gentleman has said, and the item having been called, I am quite prepared that we should revert
to the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture and go on.


Georges Henri Boivin: In order that there may be no difference of opinion about the matter to-morrow or later I shall call item No. 4, and we may then revert to the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Jacques Bureau: If item No. 4 is called, the same result is attained, and that is vhat we are objecting to. I think, with the consent of the House, the minister has a right to withdraw his instruction to call the item; he may tell the Chairman that he does not want to have it called.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What I said was that item No. 4 having been called, I am quite prepared to revert to Agriculture. As to what is fair and unfair, we will settle that later on.


Jacques Bureau: I object to item No. 4 being called. The minister wants to deprive us of a right we have under this rule. He says: "If you will consent now to let us go into Supply on the Estimates of the Justice Department on Thursday or Friday without any debate on the motion, I am willing to revert to the agricultural Estimates. Why does the minister endeavour to prevent a debate on his particular department? It is unfair at this time of the night to try to
12 m. railroad this thing through by brute force, and I want to protest against it because it is not right. Thing's have been going on nicely; everybody has been satisfied with the explanations given by the Minister of Agriculture, and I understand, from hon. members whom I have consulted, that they are willing to go on and pass items of the Department of Agriculture. I do not see why the Minister of Justice should butt in now and throw fire into the atmosphere. The Minister of Justice ought not to do a thing of this kind.


Georges Henri Boivin: There must be something before the committee to justify this debate. Let it be upon the point of order, whether or not the resolution should be placed before the committee. I shall be glad to hear any hon. member before giving my ruling.


John Howard Sinclair: It
looks like an extreme step on the part of the Minister of Justice to presume to call an item of his department and thus deprive hon. members on this side of a right which they have under the rule. If the position taken by the Minister of Justice is correct,

other ministers can call an item in eveiy department of the Government and the rule will then be equal to being obsolete altogether. In that way the Government could railroad through every department at one sitting of the committee. If the minister's view that he is doing a fair thing in this matter is correct, it follows that the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Militia and all the other ministers could take the same step now, and then we would have all the departments in the same position. That was certainly not the meaning of the rule and up to this night, it was never understood to be the meaning of the rule.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not want at this time-it is almost early morning-to discuss this matter at any length. I hardly think the Minister of Justice would wish to take in this House, any step that would prevent the Opposition from exercising any right which, under the rules of the House, we may have to discuss public questions. I am not sufficiently familiar with, nor have I studied sufficiently, the rules of the House to say whether the calling of an item by the minister will preclude us, on going into Supply, from discussing any question of public interest. But if there is any possibility of that, I have confidence enough in the Minister of Justice to know that he would npt want to use that means of closing the mouth of the Opposition. If there be any chance of that interpretation being placed upon the calling of the item, I think we of the Opposition have merely to ask the Minister of Justice courteously to withdraw that procedure, and I am sure he will be glad to accommodate us-perhaps not exactly accommodate us, but do what I know he always wants to do, that is, preserve the rights which inure to the Opposition and which may possibly have to be exercised by the other side of the House as well as by this at no distant date.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there be a desire to make a motion in regard to this particular department on our seeking to go into Supply on Thursday I would have no desire to object because of the fact that this item had been called, but if the objection is merely to create a situation where we will be thrown back into the position that we will not be entitled to go into Supply without consent because of some question that it is desired to raise about something else I really think I might be free to suggest that there is some unfairness in that. Hon. gentlemen have spoken

of me as bringing fire into this thing. I might frankly say that the fire seems to be on the other side. I have no warmth, no feeling, about it. It looked to me a perfectly normal thing to do. How does the business of this House proceed? Last evening we announced that we would take up these two departments and nobody took exception to that. Everybody seemed to think it was a perfectly natural thing that we might take up the two departments on the same day and all I now proposed to do was to carry out what everybody Understood last evening was going to be done to-day, I find myself attacked as doing unfair things, unjust things, when I am simply carrying out the programme announced last evening. If we were at a stage of the session where the missing of an opportunity to raise a question of any kind on going into Supply might be involved, I would appreciate at greater value the objection that is made but surely at this stage of the session with but one department open with everj day in the week except Thursday and Fridays as regards the department of Agriculture and if my position be correct the Department of Justice open for the making of motions I leave it frankly to hon. genelemen were exposed in many way it can be said that there is any possible injustice involved because we take a step this evening which will open up Thursday for a discussion of Estimates without a preliminary debate. I am perfectly free to say that if I could see that hon. gentlemen were exposed in any way to losing any right or any opportunity to discuss any imaginable question which they wanted to raise, I would not be disposed to insist. My one disposition in insisting on this matter was to expedite the business, and to make quite sure that on Thursday we will be able to take this thing up and go on with the discussion of the Estimates. Now I leave it to my hon. friends: Is there any ground to apprehend lack of opportunity? What will the situation be if we take up this item now? Every time we try to go into Supply, on any day other than Thursday and Friday, they will have the opportunity to make a fnotion and every day that we seek to go into Supply including Thursdays and Fridays, on any other department than Agriculture and Justice, they will have an opporunity to make a motion. Now, is it worth while getting so warm and bandying charges of

unfairness? Is it fair to say that what I suggest is unfair? There may be a difference of opinion as to whether I am absolutely within my right in doing this, but I do no.t think it raises any question of fairness or unfairness and I would put it to hon. gentlemen whether they are not willing to expedite the business of the House to that extent.


Jacques Bureau: If the hon. gentleman thinks I am showing too much warmth in accusing him of unfairness I will try and state the case more cooly. The minister has not stated the case fairly. He has been urtfair for this reason: the only day on which we can discuss matters generally is Tuesday. We have no other day. Monday is private members' day, so is Wednesday, and on Thursday the House automatically goes into Supply without any opportunity for discussion. The minister takes the ground that he is justified in going on with the Estimates of the Justice Department because it was announced yesterday that the Departments of Agriculture and Justice would be taken up. Now, if that reasoning holds good, the Prime Minister could read off a whole list of departments and say, we will take these up to-morrow, and then on the following day any of the ministers could come along at midnight and take up an item in his department. We would then be in the same position we are in to-day. I say it is absolutely unfair, and I say that without any heat and after thinking it over, because it will only leave us Tuesdays. The minister would deprive us of the opportunity of discussing public matters on Thursdays and Fridays. I think we have made a very fair offer. We told the Minister of Agriculture that if he went on with his Estimates we were willing to pass some items after reasonable explanations had been given, but here is the Minister of Justice seeking to deprive us of our opportunity of discussing public matters. If the minister does not see any unfairness in that, I cannot agree with him. To speak of warmth is beside the question. It is a matter of justice and right that we are asking. We do not wish to be deprived of a right. I am sure that the Minister of Justice, when it was announced last night that his Estimates would be taken up to-day, did not expect that an item would be called at 15 minutes past twelve. Nobody expected that. We expected that it might be called at an 61
hour when we would be in a position to have a general discussion. The minister knows we do not want to start any general discussion at this time, and if he wants to be fair he will let the Minister of Agriculture go on with a few more items, and then the committee can rise and report progress, so we can go to bed.	.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask hon. members in discussing the point of order now before the committee to remember that this is a question of interpretation of the rules, and not only a question of fairness. The chairman would be glad indeed to hear the opinion of any hon. member concerning the application of the Rules of the House before he gives his ruling.


Jacques Bureau: Our discussion was for
the purpose of having the minister withdraw his suggestion, so that any question as to the rules would be avoided.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As hon. gentlemen
seem to be so persistent in their view that there is some unfairness in the suggestion

and frankly I attach more importance to that than I do to the letter of the rule, a great deal more-while I do not see any unfairness involved-perhaps it is my obtuseness-rather than have hon. gentlemen entertain, as apparently they do, the view that I desire to do something unfair, I would prefer to withdraw the suggestion. I do not want, however, my withdrawal to be taken as a confession on my part-no doubt, it is my condition of invincible ignorance, which excuses a great many things-


Jacques Bureau: Withdraw it without
prejudice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am afraid that when I withdraw it I shall do so with a strong prejudice against the view entertained by the hon. gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw my request that resolution 4 be now read.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Minister of Justice having withdrawn his request that the resolution be now read, it cannot be considered as having been placed before the committee. My ruling upon the point of order is that the hon. minister was under the rules perfectly justified in asking that resolution 4 be now read by the Chairman, and thus placed before the committee for consideration.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman? Could all the ministers call the Estimates of their departments on the same day?


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon. member
will allow me, I will first cite the rule and then answer his question. Rule 13, paragraph 4, provides that the rules of the House shall be observed in the Committee of the whole House, so far as applicable, except the rules as to the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times of speaking. Rule 31, section 2, provides that whenever Government business has precedence Government orders may be called in such sequence as the Government may think fit. The Estimates are Government business, and when the different resolutions in the Estimates are before the committee they may be called in such sequence as the Government may think fit. In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), as to whether all hon. ministers could call the Estimates of their different departments upon the same day, I would say that if the committee would consent to dispose of those Estimates with sufficient speed to allow them to do so, the ministers would have that right except on Thursday or Friday when their Estimates have not previously been taken up. This is quite frequently done during the last days of a session. It must be remembered, however, that while any hon. member has the floor, and while any one item is before the committee no hon. minister has the right to propose any other item. When the Minister of Justice proposed that resolution 4 be called, resolution 40 had been carried.


Ernest Lapointe: Then the only course
which the Opposition would have to follow to prevent a minister from calling the items of any other department would be to keep on discussing the previous item.


Georges Henri Boivin: The only course is
to continue discussion upon the item then before the committee or move that the committee rise.


John Howard Sinclair: May I point out that the Minister of Agriculture had carried his item and there was nothing before the committee? How could the committee continue discussing something that was not before it?


Georges Henri Boivin: That is precisely the ruling of the Chair. Item 40 having been carried there was nothing before the committee, and the Minister of Justice, under the rules, had the absolute right to propose item 4.


Charles Joseph Doherty: